HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 08-28-1995 SpecialMEETING WITH MET COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, August 28, 1995 7:00 p.m.
Proposed Agenda
1. Northwest Plymouth/Cluster Planning/Elm Creek Interceptor Issues
a. Flow chart of Plymouth's planning efforts
b. Regional Development Scenarios and impact on Plymouth
1) Spread
2) Condensed
3) Channeled
c. Draft Housing Agreement between City and Met Council
d. Livable Communities Act
2. Transit Issues
a. Metro Mobility interim agreement status
b. Legislative/Met Council policy issues
1) State funding for Metro Mobility
2) Require 90 % of levy to be available to opt -outs
3) Policy on retaining carryover funds
4) Opt out communities levy own transit taxes
c. (If time permits) Discussion/questions on background materials
relating to six requests for information at July 11, Council meeting.
TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Background on Elm Creek Cluster Planning, Livable Communities Act
and Related Topics
DATE: August 24, 1995 for the Special City Council Meeting of August 28, 1995
Attached are several items to provide background for the City Council discussion:
1. Flow chart showing Long Range Planning Projects
This chart shows the basic steps, timeline through the middle of 1996 and interrelationships
of several long-range planning projects in which Plymouth is currently engaged, including
the Elm Creek Cluster Planning/ Northwest Plymouth work, Downtown Plymouth
planning, zoning ordinance updates and the Livable Communities legislation.
2. Metro Council Regional Blueprint Update
This document summarizes the Metro Council's draft "regional development scenarios"
As indicated by the flow chart, these scenarios will be used as input to create local
development scenarios for Plymouth.
3. Draft Housing Agreement between the City of Plymouth and the Metropolitan Council
A housing agreement between each of the cities and the Metropolitan Council is one of the
expected outcomes of the Elm Creek Cluster Planning project. Staff has been working with
the Metro Council staff to formulate a draft that will be presented to the Council for review
and approval later this year (possibly in November.) The copy attached is the most recent
draft. One area requiring more work is the section on goals for owner -occupied, affordable
housing (page 2). We are currently compiling maps and data showing values of all
Plymouth housing, as well as recently built units, which will be used as input on further
discussions on this topic. In addition, we are developing some additional data for the
appendix to better recognize our past efforts and existing programs for affordable housing.
4. Livable Communities Act Background Materials
A cover memo from Housing Supervisor Ed Goldsmith summarizes some of the specific
implications for Plymouth from this new legislation. The materials that follow are handouts
provided by the Metropolitan Council at a meeting Ed attended on August 23.
3 aQN o
CD
c ti
0
A
REGIONAL BLUEPRINT
S54g?-1482 19
I UPDATE BRIEFINGS
Welcome to Updatel This is the first of
several issues to be published this year
by the Metropolitan Council on three
development options for future growth of
the Twin Cities area The Council is
considering the options so it can add a
development plan to its Regional
Blueprint, the document containing the
Council's goals and policies for the
region's future. The next Update will
describe criteria to evaluate the three
options.
HOW WILL REGION LOOK
IN YEARS?
fie aldding fW 000 people to the
Cities area- ThI'o wcujd make up
the second-biggest county in Min+iiesola
in population—more than twice the a&
of Dakota County. The region is forecast
to grow nearly 30 percent in the next 25
years. Where will they all live? Or, where
should they all live?
The Twin Cities area will grow to 3.1
million people by the year 2020, up from
today's population of 2.4 million,
according to Metropolitan Council
forecasts. The forecast increase exceeds
the region's growth during the past 25
years, when it grew by 575,000.
Households are even more important
than population for planning purposes.
The seven -county region will grow by an
estimated 330,000 households,* up from
940,000 today. That's a sizable
increase—more households than both
Minneapolis and St. Paul have today.
Jobs are forecast to grow by 310,000' in
the next 25 years, up from 1.4 million
today. That's well below the pace of job
growth in the previous 25 years, when
the region added 620,000 jobs.
The forecast growth raises two
fundamental planning questions. Where
will households and jobs locate? (This
assumes a continuation of trends and
current public action.) The second
question is: Where should they locate?
The Council has developed three
development options for growth for the
Preliminary estimates.
A,A Metropolitan CouncilFIRST-CLASS MAIL
A,A Mears Park Centre I U.S. POSTAGEAA230EastFifthStreetPAID
St. Paul, M 101-1634 St. Paul, MN
612-291-63 1-0904 Permit No. 7029
7[ V/ x 15150rANNNU1tL6RT -{
wx UNITA EV JJ0 MENT RECTME15598
yJ rcq ` F PLYMdti $
rE PL t OUT11 BLVD
PL Iat{jtMI151147-7482
u
Iek-H(J
t„ T
IIITTIIIrlrr it Alit, 11,111011llrlrr lilt l,rrlr Ili n tr ll lj
Recycled paper: ontalns at least 50% post -consumer waste
region.to_consider. Any of the option—
or a combination --could be the basis for
guiding the location of future
development.
A new summary brochure, Choosing an
Urban Development Option for the Twin
Cities Area: 1995-2020, describes each
option. The brochure helps guide
decision-making by local officials,
community leaders and the general
public in planning the region's future.
The options emerge from policy choices
already made in the Council's Regional
Blueprint.
The Spread Development option would,
as the name suggests, lead to a new
ring of development around the region.
A second option, Concentrated
Development, would limit where growth
could be located. A third, Channeled
Development, would locate some of the
rgw growth at high -activity centers of
develQqppment along highways and transit
routesNesufting in some growth in the
rural area.%
e
Why should the region look at these
options? Metropolitan Council staff
forecasts for the reg'Ii6n add more people
and households duringthe next quarter
century than originally thowht. Also, the
region needs a regional bevelopment
plan. The plan will provide a pamework
for investment decisions about the
region's transit and sewer servigw. The
option selected will givelk local
governments and the private aerator a
context for future growth and
development decisions.
The brochure also summarizes new
forecasts and recent trends that offela
glimpse of the future. In addition, likely
costs of the region's sewer and trenilt
services are identified.
0 20 YEARS FROM NOW—
What will we be like?
Average of 2 children per family.
Average household size of 2.5 people.
More racially diverse.
More older people.
I
July 1995
Where will we be living?
If trends continue, expect...
Twice as many people in western half
of the region (compared with the
eastern half.)
THREE VERY DIFFERENT
OPTIONS FOR REGIONAL
GROWTH
The three development options are
conceptual and do not define impact on
speck communities. The illustrations
on the back page, exaggerated, will be
further defined later.
Once an option Is selected, the region's
growth pattern will slowly shift over time.
By the year 2020, land use changes will
be evidenL
Spread Development
This option is more market-driven than
the others. it meets the region's demand
for housing and job location wherever
demand occurs. The Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA) would expand as
needed to accommodate development.
The MUSA is the already -developed
urban area, plus land planned for future
urban growth.
This option is the closest to what's
happening today. Growth would likely
continue in a new concentric ring around
the already developed part of the region.
Rural land near the region's urbanizing
edge would be seen as land 'on hold'
for the next phase of urban expansion.
Development density (the number of
housing units per acre) would be low.
REGIONAL BLUEPRINT
Concentrated Development
This option requires all future urban
growth to locate within the MUSA,
leading to higher density over time.
There would be no MUSA expansion
before the year 2020—and no new public
Infrastructure in the rural area
Development would fill in at available
sites, or at redeveloped sites cleared of
their old uses.
Development focus is on the central
cities and older suburbs, at the same
time filling in newer suburbs. This option
requires a deliberate regional effort to
shape the location of new urban
development and to preserve agricultural
and outside the MUSA.
Channeled Development
This option locates some urban growth
along highways and transit routes,
especially at the high—activity centers of
development friendly to buses, bikes
and pedestrians.
The MUSA line would project into parts
of the rural area to allow for growth
along these corridors. However, the
remainder of the MUSA would not
expand. Corridors would stretch from the
downtowns to outlying suburbs, or from
suburb to suburb. Revitalization efforts
would focus on the corridors, making
the option a strong strategy to renew the
core and suburbs.
NEXT STEPS
V
For more information, or for a copy of
the brochure, call the Data Center at
291-8140 (or 291-0904 TTI).
N GRAPHICS NOTE
The black inner boundary line is the
seven -county metro area The outer line
contains the counties adjacent to the
seven metro counties.
Spread Development
The shaded area is the current built-up
area The lines roughly encircling it
represent the current Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA), and its possible
future expansions.
The circle%are cities in the rural area
They are Mikey to grow by 2020,
depending opwhich development option
is pursued. E
Concentrated Development
The ral ways the public can be
n the planning. This summer e
an a unci) will 00holdpublic0
me s, pub rs n GtTsleaws, and moo
with rcials from local communities and
other interested groups. People with
online computers can access
information and comment via the Twin
Cities Computer Network, or call the
Metro Information Hotline, 2293780. The
public also can attend Council
committee meetings where the growth
options will be discussed.
The Council plans to select a growth
option near the end of 1995.
To date, five more community meetings Cly
are planned (most of the sites are yet to
be determined):
Aug. 2, on development (residential,
commercial, Industrial) and relationship
to schools and libraries in Bloomington,
Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska,
Shakopee, Savage and Burnsville. 6:30
p.m. in Shakopee City Hall
Sept. 8, on redevelopment and
reinvestment of large -state sites in St.
Louis Park, Golden Valley and
downtown Minneapolis.
Sept 13, on development In northern
counties of Anoka, Chisago and Isanti.
Sept 22. on redevelopment and
reinvestment of Snelling Transit Garage,
around downtown St. Paul and Twin
Cities Arsenal in Arden Hills.
Oct 9, on community and
employment centers and community
identity in Woodbury, Cottage Grove,
Apple Valley, Rosemount and Eagan.
1/ W7%
V
REGIONAL BLUEPRINT
DRAFT
8-23-95
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S
DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
This agreement on future housing activities and efforts in Plymouth is pursuant to the Elm Creek cluster
planning project, of which Plymouth is a participant. Elements of the agreement are based on Plymouth's
current housing situation, its forecasted growth, and comparisons of Plymouth with its neighboring suburbs
northwest of Minneapolis' and with all 63 developing communities in the region.
To meet the housing needs of its current and future residents, the City of Plymouth will make its best efforts
to increase the availability of affordable and life -cycle housing and maintain the level of diversity of housing
type already present in the community. However, relative to the diversity, tenure, density and cost of housing
developed in Plymouth, the City does not produce housing, nor does it control the housing market in
Plymouth. It can, however, influence housing production and can proactively work to achieve its goals
through its use of official controls, public service requirements, local approvals process and the use of
available housing assistance programs.
OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to these ends, the City agrees to the following objectives:
Affordability.
A. The Metropolitan Council will work with communities to distribute available programmatic
resources to complement private sector efforts to produce and preserve affordable housing.
Rental Units. Between 1996 and 2010, the city will work toward expanding the
share of its rental housing affordable to low and moderate income families.
Plymouth will work to make 35 percent of its rental housing affordable to families
earning no more than 50 percent of the regional median income (up to $25,500 in
1995). In addition, a significant portion of these new rental units should be
affordable to very low income households, that is, those at 30 percent of the regional
median income.
This expansionof affordable rental housing may be accomplished through new
construction, additional section 8 existing housing certificates or vouchers, or other
creative efforts by the City to make existing rental housing in Plymouth more
affordable. The recent refinancing of a City revenue bond program associated with
an apartment complex in exchange for a guarantee of affordable rent levels within
the complex, is an example local efforts that can increase the number of affordable
units without building new ones.
These efforts to increase affordable rental housing will help fill the affordable rental
housing gap of over 400 units that exists for Plymouth according to the
The Northwest of Minneapolis Planning Sector includes Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Crystal,
Maple Grove, Medicine Lake, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth and Robbinsdale.
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data prepared by HUD,
and set forth in the City HRH's Consolidated Plan.
Owner Occupied. In 1994, only 42 percent of Plymouth's homesteaded housing
was valued at $115,000 or less. This is in contrast to 69 percent for all developing
area suburbs and 77 percent for all communities in the Northwest Minneapolis
planning sector.
Between 1996 and 2010, Plymouth will, as the new home market permits, work to
increase the percent of its homesteaded properties valued at or below $115,000 in
1994 dollars in an effort to move toward a level more like that experienced by other
developing suburbs in its planning sector.
Plymouth will do what it can to influence housing costs recognizing that since 1991
only approximately 40 percent of new construction ownership housing in the region
has sold for $115,000 or less, a level affordable to households at approximately 80
percent of regional median income.
Because land costs in Plymouth make single-family detached homes at this cost
almost impossible to develop, most of the new affordable ownership units will be
attached housing, i.e., townhomes and condominiums built at higher density to
reduce per unit costs.
In addition, an important element of the City's affordable ownership housing efforts
will be to encourage retention of its existing supply of affordable housing valued
below $115,000 in 1994 as this housing will be impossible to replace.
B. The City will strive to integrate more affordable housing throughout currently developed
areas and in areas yet to be developed. Efforts will be made to not concentrate affordable
housing units in only a few areas within the city.
2. Density.
A. Multifamily development. Plymouth will permit and promote an increase in the density of
multifamily housing developed in the city. It will employ its local controls to achieve an
average multifamily density of at least 11 units per acre for new multifamily development in
the city between 1996 and 2010. This target density is consistent with multifamily housing
densities in developing area suburbs.
Pursuant to this goal of increasing multifamily density, the city may pursue adoption of a
minimum density standard for multifamily development.
B. Single family detached. Plymouth will increase the density of new single family detached
housing in the city as land developed. for new single family homes between 1996 and 2010
will be developed at a gross density of 2.5 units per acre or greater.
Diversity.
Though expanded diversification of its housing stock is not the City's top priority, given its current
housing diversity that fmds 39 percent of its housing stock as non -single family detached, it
recognizes that the new construction housing market and increasing life -cycle housing demands may
mean continued development of multifamily housing, especially townhomes and condominiums. For
the period 1996 through 2010, the city will make every effort to maintain the non -single family
detached share of its housing as at least 34 percent of its housing stock, the level of diversification
found in developing suburbs and suburbs in Plymouth's geographic area. If necessary to
accommodate this diversification, Plymouth will make land use and/or zoning changes to ensure that
there is enough land for continued multifamily housing development.
4. Owner/Renter Mix.
Though the City cannot directly control the tenure of housing built in the community, through its land
use controls, approvals process and participation in housing development programs it can influence
and facilitate the development of rental housing. Significant rental housing, 29 percent of all units,
does exist in Plymouth, however much of it is not affordable to low and moderate income
households. For the period 1996 through 2010, the City establishes as a target goal that a minimum
of 25 percent of units added to the City's housing stock be rental housing.
ACTION IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIVES
The City will revise the housing element of its comprehensive plan in a manner consistent with
guidelines being drafted by the Metropolitan Council. This revision will be completed within six
months of the adoption of the guidelines.
In its housing element, Plymouth will address the housing issues set forth in this agreement.
The City will use and will encourage developers to use available state and federal housing assistance,
production and rehabilitation programs. The City will actively seek out and participate in the
programs of public sector providers and private lenders, as well as those of non-profit and for-profit
providers and developers to provide rental assistance, home ownership and housing rehabilitation
opportunities for low and moderate -income households. If needed, the City will supplement such
efforts with local sources such as CDBG funds and/or its HRA.
The City will continue its on-going dialogue with developers, builders and citizens about the impact
and influence of local land use controls and public service requirements on the cost of new housing
development. These local controls and requirements include such items as local land use regulation,
environmental controls, park dedication, engineering standards and the local approval process.
Through surveys, meetings, ordinance review and reexamination, the city will continue these efforts.
4. Plymouth will continue, and as possible, given funding limitations, expand, their reverse commute
program as part of Plymouth Metrolink. Additionally, the City will work with the cities of Brooklyn
Park and Maple Grove to develop transit service linking people and jobs across the three cities.
gp08O2O5.ply
3
APPENDIX TO PLYMOUTH HOUSING AGREEMENT
Current needs and forecasted growth indicate a significant need for the development of affordable life -cycle
housing in Plymouth. "Life -cycle housing" refers to the availability of housing for people at all stages of
their lives, rental, ownership, attached, detached and at a range of different costs. Communities with a wide
variety of housing types and prices are in a good position to meet peoples changing needs as their income,
household size and circumstances change.
Housing is considered "affordable" if it consumes no more than 30 percent of a household's income.' In this
context, it refers to housing that is affordable to very low income (less than 30 percent of median), low
income (30 to 50 percent of median), and moderate income (50 to 80 percent of median) households. In 1995
these income levels and the associated affordable housing costs are the following.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 1995
Median Family Income = $51,000
Very Low $15,300 7.35 382 NA NA NA NA
1995 Hourly Approx. Afford. Approx. Afford. Approx. Afford. Approx. Afford. Approx. Afford.
Income Wage Mo. Hsg. Cost Mortgage Amt. Total Unit Cost Mortgage Amt. Total Unit Cost
Level Full-time(Rent) 8% 8% A 9% 9%
Very Low $15,300 7.35 382 NA NA NA NA
0-30% of MFI)
Low $25,500 12.25 638 66,000 69,500 60,000 63,900
30-50% of MR)
Moderate $40,800 19.61 1,020 112,000 118,000 103,000 109,000
50-80% of MR)
Middle - Median 24.51 1,275 140,000 148,000 134,000 140,000
51,000
106%MFI)
Total cost includes base rent or mortgage principal, interest for 30 years, and taxes and insurance of
150/mo. on a mortgage less than $100,000 or $200/mo.
This definition of affordability and the following income classification definitions are from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (IIUD).
Affordability and Current Needs
There are a substantial number of low and very low income households in the city and very few affordable
housing units. The 1990 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) databook for Plymouth
shows the number of very low and low income households in the city and the number of housing units
affordable to them.
RENTING HOUSEHOLDS
1990 CHAS Databook
Household Size
Number
of
Households
Unit Size
of
Bedrooms)
Number of
Affordable
Units Difference
Very Low Income Renters
1-2 Persons 172 0 or 1 14 158
3-4 Persons (Small Family) 240 2 79 161
5+ Persons (Large Family) 18 3+ 57 39)
Total 430 150 280
Low Income Renters
1-2 Persons 221 0 or 1 106 115
3-4 Persons (Small Family) 122 2 64 58
5+ Persons (Large Family) 13 3+ 42 29)
Total 356 212 144
Total Low and Very Low Renters
1-2 Persons 393 0 or 1 120 273
3-4 Persons (Small Family) 362 2 143 219
5+ Persons (Large Family) 31 3+ 99 68)
Total 786 362 424
OWNING HOUSEHOLDS
1990 CHAS Databook
The actual shortfall of affordable units is even greater than shown in these tables. Many of the housing units
affordable to low and very low income households are occupied by households with higher incomes. As a
result, there were a total of 1,127 low and very low income households in Plymouth paying more than 30
percent of their income for housing in 1990.
In terms of the value of homesteaded properties in Plymouth, in 1994 only 42 percent of its units were valued
at $115,000 or less. This is in comparison to a figure of 69 percent for developing suburbs in total, and 77
percent for the suburbs in the northwest Minneapolis planning sector.
The affordability of ownership housing in Plymouth is a challenge for the City. Increasing employment
growth coupled with market realities that are increasing land and housing costs in Plymouth make the
preservation and the "rolling -over" of existing affordable units to new younger households a primary means
of meeting the City's affordable housing goals.
Housing Diversity and Density
Plymouth has a diversity of housing that is somewhat greater than that of the developing communities as a
whole that of its geographic area. In 1993, Plymouth had 39 percent of their housing that was other than
single family detached. This was higher than the level of all developing suburbs (35 percent) and that of
cities in the northwest of Minneapolis suburban planning sector (34 percent). In 1990, 29 percent of the
housing in Plymouth was rental compared to 24 percent rental for all developing communities and 28 percent
for the northwest Minneapolis suburban planning sector.
The density of multifamily housing impacts the cost of housing and the efficient provision of public
infrastructure. Currently Plymouth has relatively low multifamily housing density at eight units per acre.
This is lower than the 11 units per acre for developing suburbs and suburbs in the northwest Minneapolis
suburban planning sector.
Number of Number of Affordable
Households Units Difference
Very Low Income 322 64 258
Owners
Low Income Owners 388 261 127
Total Low and Very 710 325 385
Low Income Owners
The actual shortfall of affordable units is even greater than shown in these tables. Many of the housing units
affordable to low and very low income households are occupied by households with higher incomes. As a
result, there were a total of 1,127 low and very low income households in Plymouth paying more than 30
percent of their income for housing in 1990.
In terms of the value of homesteaded properties in Plymouth, in 1994 only 42 percent of its units were valued
at $115,000 or less. This is in comparison to a figure of 69 percent for developing suburbs in total, and 77
percent for the suburbs in the northwest Minneapolis planning sector.
The affordability of ownership housing in Plymouth is a challenge for the City. Increasing employment
growth coupled with market realities that are increasing land and housing costs in Plymouth make the
preservation and the "rolling -over" of existing affordable units to new younger households a primary means
of meeting the City's affordable housing goals.
Housing Diversity and Density
Plymouth has a diversity of housing that is somewhat greater than that of the developing communities as a
whole that of its geographic area. In 1993, Plymouth had 39 percent of their housing that was other than
single family detached. This was higher than the level of all developing suburbs (35 percent) and that of
cities in the northwest of Minneapolis suburban planning sector (34 percent). In 1990, 29 percent of the
housing in Plymouth was rental compared to 24 percent rental for all developing communities and 28 percent
for the northwest Minneapolis suburban planning sector.
The density of multifamily housing impacts the cost of housing and the efficient provision of public
infrastructure. Currently Plymouth has relatively low multifamily housing density at eight units per acre.
This is lower than the 11 units per acre for developing suburbs and suburbs in the northwest Minneapolis
suburban planning sector.
PLYMOUTH AND COMPARISONS
Forecasted Growth
Employment and demographic trends in Plymouth will lead to the need for significantly more affordable life-
cycle housing. Growth forecasts for Plymouth are currently being reexamined and revised and may be lower
than earlier forecasted. In any, case, however, the City will add several thousand jobs and households between
1990 and 2010. The expected nature of this growth and the aging of the current population means Plymouth
will need to add to its stock of affordable housing and maintain a diverse supply of various housing types,
both for ownership and rental.
This employment growth will include a substantial number of jobs with modest pay. Data included in The
Governor's Economic vitality and Housing Initiative (January 1995) show that 45 percent of the job
growth in the region from 1991 to 1993 was in low paying industries; such as retail trade, eating/drinking
places and personal/repair services. Pay in the low paying industries averaged $15,363 per year in 1994.
This level is approximately 30 percent of the region median income in 1994, the level defined as "very low
It is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the jobs created in Plymouth will be in low paying
industries.
Consumer choice regarding housing type can change as the households move through various stages and
circumstances. One indicator of the housing type preferred by a household is the age of the householder.
Households headed by a person under age 30 and those age 70 and older are much more likely to live in
housing that is not a single family detached home than are households headed by persons between age 30 and
69.
In addition, increasing numbers of "empty nest" households are moving up to more expensive second or third
homes, often attached forms of housing, thus leading to turnover of the single family unit they occupy to
younger households.
Multifamily Housing
Non -Single Family Rental Units Density
Detached Housing of Total Units Units Per Acre
of Total Units -1993 1990 1990
Plymouth 39% 29% 8
All Developing 35% 25% 11
Communities
Northwest of 34% 28% 11
Minneapolis
Suburban Planning
Sector
Forecasted Growth
Employment and demographic trends in Plymouth will lead to the need for significantly more affordable life-
cycle housing. Growth forecasts for Plymouth are currently being reexamined and revised and may be lower
than earlier forecasted. In any, case, however, the City will add several thousand jobs and households between
1990 and 2010. The expected nature of this growth and the aging of the current population means Plymouth
will need to add to its stock of affordable housing and maintain a diverse supply of various housing types,
both for ownership and rental.
This employment growth will include a substantial number of jobs with modest pay. Data included in The
Governor's Economic vitality and Housing Initiative (January 1995) show that 45 percent of the job
growth in the region from 1991 to 1993 was in low paying industries; such as retail trade, eating/drinking
places and personal/repair services. Pay in the low paying industries averaged $15,363 per year in 1994.
This level is approximately 30 percent of the region median income in 1994, the level defined as "very low
It is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the jobs created in Plymouth will be in low paying
industries.
Consumer choice regarding housing type can change as the households move through various stages and
circumstances. One indicator of the housing type preferred by a household is the age of the householder.
Households headed by a person under age 30 and those age 70 and older are much more likely to live in
housing that is not a single family detached home than are households headed by persons between age 30 and
69.
In addition, increasing numbers of "empty nest" households are moving up to more expensive second or third
homes, often attached forms of housing, thus leading to turnover of the single family unit they occupy to
younger households.
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSING TYPE, 1990 CENSUS
The 1990 census counted 8,171 children under the age of 10 living in Plymouth. By the year 2010 they will be
in their twenties and looking for multifamily housing as their first living unit.
In 1990, there were 7,341 households headed by a person aged 45 or older or fully 40 percent of the City's
households. As early as 2000 and certainly by 2010, many of these households will be looking to move out of
their single family detached house and into alternative housing, preferably in their home community of Plymouth.
GP080205.PLY
5
Multifamily Other (incl.
Single Family 5+ Units Per Townhomes, duplexes,
Age Detached Building) triplexes, Mobile
of Household Percent Percent Homes, Etc.)
Head Percent
Less Than 30 Years 33% 45% 22%
30-69 Years 70% 16% 14%
70+ Years 53% 37% 10%
The 1990 census counted 8,171 children under the age of 10 living in Plymouth. By the year 2010 they will be
in their twenties and looking for multifamily housing as their first living unit.
In 1990, there were 7,341 households headed by a person aged 45 or older or fully 40 percent of the City's
households. As early as 2000 and certainly by 2010, many of these households will be looking to move out of
their single family detached house and into alternative housing, preferably in their home community of Plymouth.
GP080205.PLY
5
DATE: August 24, 1995
TO: Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director
FROM: Edward Goldsmith, HRA Supervisor 40
SUBJECT: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, Its Implications For Plymouth
By November 15th of each year the City must decide whether to participate in this program for
the coming year..
To participate the City must agree to use its locally generated "affordable and life cycle
housing opportunity amount" (ALHOA) for such housing in the City. For Plymouth this
amount is estimated to be approximately $87,000. The City's current HRA levy expenditures
meet this criteria. No additional revenues or expenditures would be required to qualify. The
City would also have to adopt goals and an action plan for encouraging development of
affordable and life -cycle housing negotiated with the Metropolitan Council.
Participation makes the City eligible to apply to the Metropolitan Council for additional funds
for the development of housing to meet the City's adopted housing goals and for funding to
assist in cleaning polluted sites in the city. This assistance is available from three separate
accounts in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. The Local Housing Incentives
Account is expected to have approximately $1 million available in 1996, $500,000 in 1997 and
1.5 million a year beginning in 1998. The Livable Communities Demonstration Account is
expected to have $4.6 million available in 1996. Polluted site clean-up would be funded from
the Tax Base Revitalization Account with an estimated $6.5 million available in 1996.
Participation could also leverage additional funds from the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency (MHFA), the Minneapolis -St. Paul Family Housing Fund and the Department of
Trade and Economic Development (DTED). Participation will also be a factor considered by
the Met Council when deciding on regional investments affecting a community. More detailed
information from the Met Council on the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act is attached.
The Met Council is required to report annually to the legislature on city participation and
progress in implementing the action plan and meeting the stated goals. Plymouth's decision to
participate would be open to legislative and public scrutiny.
Depending upon the details of the to be developed action plan, participation would provide
Plymouth with access to additional resources for affordable and life -cycle housing and polluted
site clean-up, without the requirement to provide any additional local resources. Participation
would also be positively viewed by the Metropolitan Council and the legislature.
Metropolitan Council =
tii'orkUVfor the Region. Plarning, jor the Agure
Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 TIY 291-0904 Metro info line 229-3780
Metropolitan Council
Wlw.- Individual communities, working in partnership with the Metropolitan Council.
Lt.• An investment in the health and vitality of the region. The Legislature established a fund
for communities to invest in local economic revitalization and affordable housing initiatives. The
fund has three separate accounts dedicated to cleaning up polluted land; revitalizing communities
and promoting efficient development; and providing housing that's affordable to people living on
low and moderate incomes.
The new law is cited as unique in the nation. Its benefits are clear:
cities and towns are eligible for dollars to improve communities, and,
local units of government are in the driver's seat to guide local planning and decision-making.
Communities choose whether to participate and help determine how to use the
resources available.
n.- To be eligible for funding, communities, by Nov. 15, must declare their intent to
participate in the housing program.
Wlwm.- Communities in the Twin Cities metro area.
Glr The "Livable Communities Act" is an investment in the region. It will contribute to the
economic well-being of the central cities and surrounding suburbs. It will expand affordable and
life -cycle housing opportunities where job growth is highest. And, it will encourage communities
to be creative about development and redevelopment efforts and promote growth that is more
compact and transit -oriented.
The emphasis is on cooperation and incentives to achieve regional goals. Local units of
government are best suited to make decisions about how their cities and towns will grow and
develop. However, the law recognizes it will take partnerships and shared responsibility in the
region to continue our economic successes.
Communities are encouraged to include housing diversity and choice among their primary
objectives. Priority for infrastructure investments is given to communities that choose to participate
and further their commitment to providing housing that is affordable to low- and moderate -income
families, families just starting out, single people and elderly residents. These basic principles
championed in the Livable Communities Act are also supported by the Council's
Regional Blueprint.
C*h4wa dxwt'?
You might ask, "How will housing that's more affordable improve my community?" Affordable
and life -cycle housing is an economic investment we make in communities and their residents.
It is a commitment to young families, single people and older residents that they can afford a home
in the community of their choice. It is an opportunity for families living on low and moderate
incomes and single people pursuing independence. Couples young and old won't have to move
out of their community simply because they can't afford to live there.
Housing affordability allows people who commute to work in growing suburbs to live near their
jobs. It allows unemployed and underemployed people to have better access to developing jobs
and livable wages. It provides a labor supply for businesses in growing cities and towns.
Closing the gap between where the jobs are—and where the people live who need jobs—will help
ensure continued prosperity and community stability in the Twin Cities area.
To help pay for the programs outlined in the new law, the Legislature created the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Fund. The fund is made up of three accounts administered by the
Metropolitan Council.
The Local Housing Incentives Account is at the heart of the Livable Communities Act. It is
the Legislature's answer, with bipartisan and wide-ranging local support, to one of the most
hotly -debated issues of the decade—affordable housing.
Communities that want to apply for any of the loans or grants available through the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Fund must first choose to participate in the housing incentives program
outlined in this section of the new law and must work toward housing goals developed in
cooperation with the Council.
One source of funding to help achieve housing goals is the "Affordable and Life -Cycle Housing
Opportunities Amount," calculated for each community according to a formula prescribed in
the law. These are locally -generated dollars cities and towns can apply toward affordable and
life -cycle housing within their own communities.
Beginning in 1998, however, participating communities that aren't meeting housing goals, or
spending their affordable and life -cycle housing opportunities amount to meet their goals, must
distribute this amount to their city or county housing authority or to the regional housing fund..
A second source of funding is the account itself, which is a regional fund to help participating
communities that have not met their housing goals, but are actively working to create affordable
and life -cycle housing opportunities. This account will generate about $1 million in 1996,
500,000 in 1997 and approximately $1.5 million a year beginning in 1998. Funds from the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency totaling $3.5 million and $600,000 from the Mpls.-St. Paul
Family Housing Fund will increase resources to $5.1 million for 1996. All three agencies will work
together to coordinate housing investment in the region. Communities that receive funding must
match these grant dollars.
The Tax Base Revitalization Account provides grants to communities to help clean up
polluted land and pave the way for economic development and job growth. Dollars available
through this account total an estimated $6.5 million a year and come from a Council levy for the
Right -of -Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) and a portion of the fiscal disparities pool.
To be eligible for funds from this account, communities must choose to participate in the housing
incentives program and work toward housing goals developed in cooperation with the Council.
Grants from this account may be used as a local match for clean up funds of $7.8 million from the
Metropolitan Council
Department of Trade and Economic Development totaling $20.5 million in resources.
The Livable Communities Demonstration Account provides loans and grants to revitalize
neighborhoods and promote efficient development. Dollars available through this account total
4.6 million a year initially and are generated by taxes formerly levied by, and payments formerly
made to, the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. (Beginning in 1997, $500,000 a year will
be transferred into the Local Housing Incentives Account.)
Dollars in this account will provide opportunities for metro -area communities to be creative about
development and redevelopment initiatives. To lend greater perspective to this part of the
program, .the Council will work with an advisory committee to set criteria for determining which
projects qualify for funds from this account, based on guidelines in the legislation. Demonstration
projects eligible for funding, for example, must foster more compact development, housing
diversity and development within close proximity to transit and other existing services.
To be eligible for funds from this account communities must choose to participate in the housing
incentives program and work toward housing goals developed in cooperation with the Council.
qUan Q)&Wnit gjxo r
A final component of the Livable Communities Act is the urban homestead program, which will
give income tax exemptions to people who purchase and move into homes in certain
declining neighborhoods.
The law requires the Council to designate one or more "urban revitalization and stabilization
zones" by September 1995. Anyone who buys and occupies a home within a designated area
would receive an income tax break for up to five years, provided they do not move out of the
home, sell the house, fail to comply with building codes or get convicted of a felony.
The law establishes a maximum exemption and subjects the exemption to certain income limits.
PX09Xe"
The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Council, beginning in 1996, to issue an
annual city -by -city report card on affordable and life -cycle housing in the metro area.
The Council must also report to the Legislature on the probable development patterns in the
metro area over the next 25 years and their impact on the region. This is an effort that has been
underway at the Council since early 1995.
The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act is a complex piece of legislation. The Council will often
look to communities to help define and interpret various aspects of the law. Direct your questions
to your Livable Communities staff team. Also, check the Metro Information Line by calling
229-3780. Or check the Twin Cities Computer Network for on-line program information. You can
access TCCN with your computer by dialing (612) 337-5400, or contact TCCN Client Support
at . (612) 332-2101.
August 1985
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
Commitment to families
Young families, singles and elderly can
live in the community of their choice
Commitment to economy
Live near the workplace, with access to
jobs offering livable wages
Commitment to cooperation
Provide incentives to achieve goals
through local/regional partnerships
i
What is AffoYdable Housing?
Housing is "affordable" if it costs
no more than 30 percent of a
family's income.
Ownership: 80% of median
Approximately $41,000)
115,000 home in 1994
Rental: 50% of median
Approximately $20,000)
500 per month in 1990
moi•
What is Life -Cycle Housing?
Variety of housing types and cost
Meets people's changing needs
and preferences as incomes, lives
and circumstances change
Resources to communities for:
Affordable and life -cycle housing
Clean up of polluted sites for
business and jobs
New development linking
housing, jobs and transportation
Local Housing Incentives
Account
1 million available in 1996 to
create affordable and life -cycle
housing
By 1998, $1.5 million annually
for affordable and life -cycle
housing
Tax Base Revitalization
Account
6.5 million available annually to
clean up polluted sites
Increased economic development
and jobs for residents
J
i
Livable Communities
Demonstration Account
4.6 million to revitalize
neighborhoods in 1996
4.1 million annually beginning
in 1997
Compact, efficient development
close to transit with housing
variety and jobs
i
How to Participate
Meet with Council team to develop
affordable housing goals and agreements
By November 15, 1995 cities adopt a
resolution to participate
Adopt housing agreements by
December 8, 1995
Council adopts regional housing
agreements by January 15, 1996
Develop action plan by June 30, 1996
Communities' Options Under
LCA -CHIP
1) Participate and adopt goals
Access to dollars to improve
community
Local control and decision-
making
Streamline planning
requirements
i
Communities' Options Under
LCA -CHIP
2) Don't participate
No access to LCA funds or DTED
polluted sites funds
City by city report card to
legislature on participation and
progress
Regional investments
0 Regional and public expectations
I
1
i
Next Steps
Contact with Council team
August forum with AMM
September staff forum
Resolution by November 15, 1995
Adopt goals by December 8, 1995
Council adopts goals by January 15, 1996
Action plan by June 30, 1996
DATE: August 24, 1995
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager through
Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
FROM: John R. Sweeney, Transit Administrato
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADD / ONAL INFORMATION
PERTAINING TO TRANSIT ISSUES ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED AT
THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY 11, 1995
Attached are responses to all of the items for which the City Council requested
additional information at a special meeting to discuss City transit issues on July 11,
1995. For background information, Attachment No. 1 is a memo from me dated June
29, 1995 entitled "Metro Mobility Services Changes in Plymouth. " Attachment No. 2
is the minutes of the special Council meeting of July 11, 1995. Pages 4 and 5 of these
minutes contain the six informational items or issues that the Council directed staff to
respond to.
Attachment No. 3 is a memo to me from George Bentley dated July 19, 1995 that
responds to Issue No. 1 whereby the City Council requested information on what was
the total Plymouth property tax levy paid for transit service since 1990 to include the
90% eligible to be used for City transit service; the actual amount expended each year
and the unspent balance. George's response to Issue No. 1 is entitled "Historical Tax
Collections and Expenditures for Metrolink. "
Please note that the information presented is for the years 1991 through 1995. George
has indicated that 1990 was not provided at this time because the Regional Transit
Board did not individualize the information until 1991 when the Minnesota Valley
Transit Authority commenced their operations. He has indicated that if the City
Council would like additional information on 1990, it can be provided but it will take
additional time to extract the information.
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PERTAINING TO TRANSIT ISSUES ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED AT
THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY 11, 1995
Page 2
The second page of Attachment No. 3 addresses the procedures followed for budget
carryover funds and discusses how the policy has changed over time. Based on the
current policy, the total amount of carryover funds presently available to Plymouth
Metrolink is $423,931 with potential to increase by as much as $25,000 pending the
results of final negotiations with Southwest Metro Transit.
Attachment No. 4 is in response to Issue No. 6 as detailed in the minutes of the
special meeting on July 11 whereby the City Council requested that we "Develop a
scenario including cost to expand the existing Dial -A -Ride service to provide accessible
Dial -A -Ride vehicles and to implement a limited paratransit service with connections to
Metro Mobility, to Ridgedale, or to other connecting points. This option should be
considered if Metro Mobility is discontinued in Plymouth in the future. "
Attachment No. 4 is a memo from George Bentley to me dated July 18, 1995 entitled
Paratransit Service Cost Comparisons." I believe the memo is self explanatory and
that George has addressed the various concerns of the City Council and this particular
request for information.
Attachment No. 5 is in response to Issue No. 2 "Question and determine whether
property taxes could be legally used to fund Metro Mobility in light of the Statute
Capping the Metro Mobility Program to the allocated State funding." This attachment
is a memo to me from George Bentley dated July 20, 1995 entitled "Metro Mobility
Funding Law." Based upon George's research, it does appear that (in an Opt -Out
Community) property taxes can legally be used to fund Metro Mobility in light of the
Statute Capping Metro Mobility Expenditures to the allocated funding.
Attachment No. 6 is in response to Issue No. 5 whereby the Council requested
additional information on 1,400 trips per month in Plymouth on the Metro Mobility
system, repeat ridership, destination, and purpose of use. The response to this issue is
a memo to me from George Bentley dated July 21, 1995 entitled "Essential Nature of
Metro Mobility Trips in Plymouth." His memo responds to those questions and
explains the limitations and statistical trip information under the American with
Disabilities Act. We have since learned that the example of 3110 Metro Mobility trips
related to Plymouth during the month of May includes cancellations as well as no
shows. In determining ultimate responsibility for payment of the trips, it has been
agreed that cancellations will not be included. The final numbers will only include
trips where a vehicle is actually dispatched for a pick-up. This decision reduces the trip
numbers by approximately 25%. For example, in May rather than 3110 trips there
were approximately 2500 trips where a vehicle was actually dispatched.
RESPaM.M
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PERTAINING TO TRANSIT ISSUES ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED AT
THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY 11, 1995
Page 3
Attachment No. 7 is a memo to Dwight Johnson from Roger Knutson responding to
questions about transit funding and in particular to Issues 2 and 3 from the July 11,
1995 meeting. These issues are questioning and determining whether property taxes
could be legally used to fund Metro Mobility in light of the Statute Capping Metro
Mobility Program to the allocated State funding and the legislative intent of what cities
were to be included in the Metro Mobility Program in the Metro area under the Statute.
Please note there were several pages of attachments in Roger's response to the fust
question of his memo and I have not attached them to this report, however, they
are available upon request.
It appears the only item we do not have a response to is Issue No. 4 "Report on Status
of AMM Involvement and Position with Respect to these Transit Issues." I believe that
Mayor Tierney is most knowledgeable in this area and perhaps she can respond orally
at a Council meeting when this memo is discussed.
attachments
DATE: June 29, 1995
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager through
Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
FROM: John R. Sweeney, Transit Administrator j
SUBJECT: METRO MOBILITY SERVICE CHANGV9IN PLYMOUTH
1u I i T" M
As a result of inadequate funding levels provided by the Minnesota Legislature, the Metropolitan
Council is currently reviewing proposals to restructure Metro Mobility, the regional paratransit
service for disabled individuals. This restructuring will likely include fare increases, service hour
reductions and service elimination in certain cities. One of the cities being considered for service
elimination is Plymouth. If Metro Mobility service is eliminated in Plymouth there would be no
paratransit service in or out of Plymouth unless provided by Plymouth Metrolink.
The purpose of this memo is to discuss the proposed Metro Mobility service cuts and to identify
options available to Plymouth Metrolink should a decision be reached to implement a paratransit
service in Plymouth.
BACKGROUND
Plymouth Metrolink
In the early 1980's the Minnesota Legislature, in response to complaints that several cities were
paying into the regional transit property tax system but were receiving little or no service, created
the Replacement Service Statute (Minnesota Statutes 477.388). Through this statute cities or
groups of cities at the end of existing MTC transit routes that received little service could set up
their own transit systems, funding those systems with the locally generated portion of the regional
transit property tax.
ATTACHMENT No. 1
Metro Mobility
Page 2
Initially 23 cities were eligible to participate in the Replacement Service program, but due to the
amount of work necessary to become certified in the program only 12 cities chose to participate
before the ability to apply sunsetted through statutory language. Those cities are Plymouth,
Maple Grove, and Shakopee, which have each formed single -city systems, the Southwest Metro
Transit Commission, comprised of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska, and the Minnesota
Valley Transit Authority, comprised of Burnsville, Eagan, Apple Valley, Rosemount, Savage,
and Prior Lake. The Replacement Service transit systems have become better known as "opt -out"
systems.
Funding for opt -out systems comes from the regional transit property tax that is levied throughout
the metropolitan area by the Metropolitan Council. Each opt -out system submits annual requests
for funds which are reviewed by the region for consistency with regional policies. If the request
is consistent with policy the Metro Council "may" (as the statute is written) provide the funding
up to 90 percent of the locally generated portion of that regional transit property tax.
Plymouth Metrolink, the first opt -out transit system, was created in 1984, and since then has seen
steady growth in passenger ridership. Metrolink provides morning and evening commuter service
to and from downtown Minneapolis, reverse commute service bringing inner city workers to
Plymouth for employment opportunities and back home in the evening, and dial -a -ride services
within Plymouth and to nearby connection points.
Transit property taxes are levied at three different levels, depending upon the level of transit
services provided to each city. Reductions in the property tax level are referred to as
feathering." The lowest property tax level, known as fully feathered, applies to communities
with no fixed route transit service or only peak hour service (between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.
and between 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.). The middle property tax level, known as partially
unfeathered, applies to cities with mid-day regular route transit services that run at a frequency of
greater than once per hour. The highest property tax level, known as fully unfeathered, applies
to communities with mid-day regular route transit service routes that operate with frequencies of
once per hour or more often.
Plymouth Metrolink does not operate any mid-day fixed route services and is taxed at the fully
feathered (lowest) rate. There is dial -a -ride service throughout the day, but dial -a -ride does not
classify as fixed mute service.
Metm Mobility
The Twin Cities metro area has had an extensive paratransit service for many years. (A
paratransit service is a transit service that provides rides to disabled individuals.) This paratransit
service is known as Metro Mobility.
Metro Mobility
Page 3
In 1990 the federal government passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which
establishes requirements for the establishment and operation of paratransit services throughout the
country. These requirements include the phase-in of a fully accessible bus fleet and the
requirement that all public entities which provide fixed route transit services must also offer
comparable paratransit service to individuals with disabilities who can not access the regular route
service.
Under ADA the requirement for a complementary paratransit service applies to areas three-
quarters of a mile either side of any fixed route service other than commuter routes (routes
operating during peak hours). In the metro area this has been interpreted to mean that
complementary paratransit services must be provided in any city with a non -peak fixed route
service. Metro Mobility is that complementary paratransit service in the Twin Cities metro area.
PROPOSED METRO MOBELITY SERVICE CUTS
Metro Mobility is currently being provided in broader areas and for more hours per day than
would be mandated under ADA. The Twin Cities has long had one of the most extensive
complementary paratransit services in the country.
All funding for Metro Mobility comes from the Minnesota Legislature (no Metro Mobility
funding comes from the property tax). In order to cap the rapidly increasing costs of Metro
Mobility service, the Legislature specifically prohibits the use of any funds other than those
provided by the State for Metro Mobility services. Less than requested funding provided by the
1995 Legislature for Metro Mobility have forced the Metropolitan Council, the operator of the
Metro Mobility system, to review cost savings in Metro Mobility operations.
Under consideration are fare increases, service hour reductions in 45 metro cities, and service
elimination in cities where service is not required under ADA. The cities slated for service
elimination are Plymouth, Maple Grove, Osseo, Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Vadnais Heights and
White Bear Township.
It appears likely, due to the budget shortfalls anticipated in Metro Mobility by the Metropolitan
Council, that the service elimination, service reductions and fare increases will be implemented.
Public hearings have already been held by the Metropolitan Council on these services changes and
they are moving forward toward a possible September 1995 implementation time frame. Staff
recommendations will be presented to the Transportation Committee on July 10, 1995 or July 17,
1995. The Metropolitan Council will probably act on this matter July 27, 1995.
MEIMOCHOMW
Metro Mobility
Page 4
IMPACTS ON PLYMOUTH
At the present time Plymouth is served by Metro Mobility. There are about 1400 requests (a
round trip is two requests) for service each month in and out of Plymouth through Metro
Mobility's service center. It has been estimated that there are over 600 Plymouth residents that
have the required Metro Mobility certification. Metro Mobility is not required to provide service
to Plymouth under ADA since Plymouth Metrolink, the transit service provider in Plymouth,
does not operate any non -peak fixed route services.
If Metro Mobility service in Plymouth is eliminated there will likely be considerable pressure for
Plymouth Metrolink to provide paratransit services. The cost of these services would be based
upon the amount of service provided, the service structure, potential drop-off and pick-up points
to connect with the Metro Mobility system, the times of operation, dispatch costs and other
factors. The Metropolitan Council estimates that to continue Metro Mobility in Plymouth
through a contract would cost $347,663 if the service was not bid out or was not restructured in
some way. This cost does not include dispatch expenses.
The funding for Plymouth Metrolink to provide a paratransit service could come from the
available regional transit property tax eligible for Metrolink use under the opt -out statute. For
1995 there is estimated to be about $305,000 unused in the maximum amount eligible to
Metrolink, but with the present overall funding shortage for the entire metro transit system it is
not known how much (if any) of these funds will be allowed for usage by Metrolink from the
Metropolitan Council. If additional funding was not provided by the Metropolitan Council, other
funding sources would have to be located or existing Metrolink services would have to be cut.
OPTIONS
If Metro Mobility is discontinued in Plymouth, the following options could be considered:
Choose not to provide a paratransit service
Implement a mid-day fixed route transit route which would make Plymouth eligible
for Metro Mobility service
Contract with Metro Mobility for service
Expand the existing dial -a -ride service, providing accessible dial -a -ride vehicles,
and implement a limited paratransit service with connections to Metro Mobility at
Ridgedale or other connecting points
Implement a full service paratransit program, including the establishment of a
dispatch center
MECMOCHO.DOc
Metro Mobility
Page 5
The option of choosing not to provide paratransit service in Plymouth, while allowed under
ADA, is probably not practicable. A paratransit system provides mobility to people who
otherwise have no means of getting to and from work, shopping, doctors or other important
locations. With a sizable disabled community in Plymouth, many of whom chose to live in
Plymouth because of available paratransit services, choosing not to provide any service would be
a very harsh decision and would likely result in serious hardships for many people.
Implementing a mid-day regular route service would seem to be a logical approach to dealing
with the elimination of Metro Mobility. However, there are problems associated with this option.
1. A regular route service will cost money to implement and operate, and there is no
certainty about the level of available funding to operate such a service now or in
the future.
2. There will probably be service cuts throughout the metro transit system in the
coming months because of a lack of funding by the Legislature and slow growth in
property tax collections. It will be difficult to justify the implementation of a new
fixed route service if the rest of the region is experiencing service cuts.
3. Even if a mid-day regular route service is implemented in Plymouth, Metro
Mobility service will likely be terminated in all opt -out systems in a second phase
of Metro Mobility reorganization. The attorney for the former Regional Transit
Board wrote an opinion in 1994 stating that the regional system has no
requirement to provide Metro Mobility in opt -out areas, and that paratransit
responsibilities relative to opt -out areas is the obligation of the opt -out systems.
The Metropolitan Council is planning on eliminating Metro Mobility services in
all opt -out areas once the first phase of Metro Mobility restructuring is completed
early next year.
The option of contracting with Metro Mobility for service is very expensive and would probably
exceed the available funding to the Metrolink system. Likewise, implementing a full paratransit
program, complete with dispatch center, is also prohibitively expensive and would not be large
enough to be cost effective.
EXPANDED DIAL -A-RIDE SERVICE
The option that appears to have the most promise is the expansion of the existing dial -a -ride
service to implement a limited paratransit service. This option could be implemented with a
minimum of disruption to the current Metrolink operations, would be the least difficult to start
up, would be the least costly of the available service options, and would provide a basic level of
service to the disabled community.
Metro Mobility
Page 6
Through talks with the contracted service provider for dial -a -ride, National School Bus Service,
Inc. (NSB), approximately three to five additional dial -a -ride vehicles (all -wheel chair lift -
equipped) could be added to the existing dial -a -ride fleet to meet the existing paratransit demand.
Reservations and dispatching would be handled by the existing NSB dial -a -ride dispatch centers,
either in St. Paul or in Eden Prairie.
By having NSB provide this expanded dial -a -ride system Plymouth Metrolink would not have to
enter into a time consuming process of competitively bidding out the service, as would be
required by regional policy for other options. A simple contract amendment with NSB would
suffice for the term of the existing contract, through March 26, 2000. Ultimately, when the
current contract and possible extensions have terminated, Metrolink will have to conduct a
competitive bid for the service, but not for several years.
The service would operate during the current dial -a -ride hours of 6:00 a. m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. This represents fewer. hours than
Metro Mobility currently operates, but would be a reasonable service level comparable to the
service provided to the rest of the community. Some hardships might result because of these
hours of service, and Metrolink could review these cases to determine if alternatives exist such as
taxis, or possible longer hours of dial -a -ride service.
An expanded dial -a -ride service would not make the long trips across the metro area that Metro
Mobility currently provides. Instead, connecting points would be established with Metro
Mobility for transfers to and from other metro locations. These points would be near the borders
of Plymouth, such as at Ridgedale or at K -Mart in New Hope. This transfer requirement would
probably not please all users of the system, but it would be the only cost effective means of
delivering the service.
NSB is currently analyzing data relative to a possible expansion of dial -a -ride services to include
a paratransit element. Specific costs would be developed before any decisions to proceed are
made. At this time it appears the cost of this service would probably range between $150,000
and $200,000 per year, and there are strong indications that the Metropolitan Council would be
willing to fund this amount at least through 1996 with our opt -out money. It would probably be
appropriate to consider a possible direct request to the Legislature for supplemental funding to
assist in managing future system costs.
RECOMMENDATION
This memo is provided for your information. The Council will be kept fully informed as
information becomes available.
G -A
MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 119 1995
A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at
6:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Center, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on July 11, 1995.
COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney; Councilmembers Lymangood, Granath, and
Edson. Councilmember Wold arrived at 6:20 p.m.
ABSENT: Councilmembers Anderson and Helliwell.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant Manager Lueckert, Community
Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director Moore, Transit Administrator
Sweeney, Transit Consultant George Bentley, and City Clerk Ahrens.
CITY TRANSIT ISSUES
John Sweeney, Transit Administrator, explained the current Metrolink and Dial -a -
Ride services in the City of Plymouth. Dial -a -Ride is currently operating at
capacity, and there are about 250,000 passengers per year on both systems. He
stated that as an opt -out community, Plymouth must annually prepare a Transit
Management Plan and Budget for approval by the City Council and the
Metropolitan Council. He presented information on ridership for the last several
years. He stated that for 1995J. Plymouth has $1.6 million that the Metropolitan
Council can provide as needed to comply with the approved Management Plan
budget. It is projected that Plymouth will use about $1.275 million of that amount.
The $1.6 million is 90 percent of the amount Plymouth residents pay in property
taxes that is allocated to the Metropolitan Council for transit service. In theory,
the City could receive up to 90 percent of the local property tax dollars allocated
to the Metropolitan Council for transit service, with the Metropolitan Council
retaining 10 percent.
Councilmember Edson asked what happens to the balance of available "Plymouth
funds" if the City does not spend the entire $1.6 million in 1995.
City Manager Johnson explained that when the Regional Transit Board was
administering the transit system, the funds would retain designation to a particular
city and were carried over from year to year. It appears that the Metropolitan
Council now intends to retain a substantial portion of Plymouth's previous fund
balance for transportation uses in other cities.
ATTACHMENT No. 2
Special Council Meeting
July 11, 1995
Page 2
George Bentley stated he previously served as a consultant for ten opt -out cities,
including Plymouth. He now serves as Plymouth's transit consultant. He stated
that at the end of 1995, one-half of the carry-over funds will go to the
Metropolitan Council and one-half will remain for use by the City. However, the
Metropolitan Council will likely claim Plymouth's previous unspent balance prior
to 1995.
Transit Administrator Sweeney estimated that about $325,000 will be unspent of
Plymouth's $1.6 million by year-end. He described the Metro Mobility program
and stated that the Metropolitan Council is in financial trouble with this program.
He stated that 1,400 trips were made on Metro Mobility in Plymouth during April,
1995.
Mr. Bentley stated that Metro Mobility is funded directly by the state legislature,
with $30 million budgeted for the system for the current two year biennium.
Public Works Director Moore explained that Metro Mobility is totally funded with
state dollars and no local property taxes. He stated that in an effort to cut losses in
providing the Metro Mobility program, the Metropolitan Council is giving
consideration to eliminating the Metro Mobility service to seven communities,
including Plymouth. He stated that the Metropolitan Council does not have to
legally provide the service in Plymouth. The Metropolitan Council staff is now
recommending that a monthly billing system be implemented for the seven cities
who continue to receive Metro Mobility service after October 1, 1995. The billing
would be based on an average system subsidy per passenger trip. The
Metropolitan Council staff is further recommending that the seven cities explore
alternative service delivery methods to become operational no later than April 1,
1996, that minimizes impacting passengers.
Manager Johnson explained that the Metropolitan Council originally indicated they
wanted to eliminate Metro Mobility service in Plymouth and the six other
communities by October, 1995. They are now considering billing the seven cities
to continue the service for six months. The funds would be obtained from the
cities' remaining levy for transit services (for Plymouth, the estimated $325,000).
He stated that this would be a significant precedent as local property tax dollars,
rather than solely state tax dollars, would be used to continue the Metro Mobility
system in some cities.
Councilmember Edson stated that the City needs to consider the real possible loss
to the City. He stated that it is projected that Plymouth will have $325,000 by
year-end. The Metropolitan Council will retain one-half of that amount, or
162,500. Based on the current operations, the cost for the Metro Mobility
system in Plymouth would be about $201,000 for the year. Therefore, Plymouth
would be losing approximately $40,000.
Special Council Meeting
July 11, 1995
Page 3
Manager Johnson stated that the Council also needs to consider the possibility that
one-half of the balance that theoretically goes into the City's account at year-end
may never be available to the City. The money cannot be used without the
approval of the Metropolitan Council, and the allocation and rules for use of the
money could be changed at any time.
Public Works Director Moore stated that the Council should also consider that if
the Metro Mobility service is funded from the City's unspent property tax transit
dollars, the City will not have the option of increasing local transit service for
Metrolink and Dial -a -Ride in the future because the funds will be expended.
Councilmember Lymangood asked about the Metro Mobility service levels and
service area.
Manager Johnson explained that the Metro Mobility service is available 20 hours
per day and service is provided anywhere within the seven county area. It was
noted that, for example, a resident could board Metro Mobility in Plymouth and
ride door-to-door to a location in Hastings for one local fare.
Mr. Bentley stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates the
type of service that must be provided. The only items under the current Metro
Mobility service that are optional are the number of operational hours and the
number of cities to which service is provided.
Manager Johnson stated that if the City took over the paratransit service currently
provided by Metro Mobility in Plymouth, the type of service could be amended.
The hours of service could be reduced from 20 hours per day and the service area
to which riders are delivered could be amended.
Manager Johnson stated that these issues are currently before the Metropolitan
Council, and he requested direction on the position the City should take.
Mayor Tierney stated it may be useful to call a meeting of the City Council
Subcommittee on Transit to discuss and follow these issues. She also asked if the
Metropolitan Council's proposals have been investigated for legal compliance.
Mr. Bentley responded that the statute clearly states that the Metropolitan Council
may" provide funding.
Manager Johnson added that this language has been reviewed by the City Attorney
who advises that the word "may" means that the funding to the City is optional.
Special Council Meeting
July 11, 1995
Page 4
Councilmembers Lymangood and Edson requested that staff provide information
on the history of the City's total levy for transit service, the 90 percent allocation
back to the City of Plymouth, and the amount and percentage of the 90 percent
that was actually used, with the transit fund carry-over each year since 1990.
Mr. Bentley questioned another aspect of the Metropolitan Council proposal
regarding Metro Mobility. He noted that the legislature capped the total amount
that can be spent on Metro Mobility when approving the Metro Mobility funding.
He questioned whether the Metropolitan Council can legally use property tax
dollars in addition to the state funding.
The Council requested that the legislative intent and legality of this aspect of the
proposal also be checked.
Councilmember Edson questioned the legislative intent of designating the Metro
Mobility service area. He noted that the legislature appropriated $30 million over
two years for Metro Mobility that is to be shared in the seven county area. He
believes there is a fairness issue because Plymouth should get its portion of that
service for the state dollars allocated. This should also be investigated. Why
should Plymouth pay local property tax dollars for a service that is provided to
other communities with state dollars?
Mr. Bentley stated that the statute designates the appropriation for "Metro
Mobility", but does not designate where the service will be provided. He stated
that the Metropolitan Council is required to provide this service under ADA. They
are providing the required service under Metro Mobility.
Councilmember Edson asked about the AMM involvement and position on this
issue.
After further discussion, Councilmember Lymangood summarized that the.City
Council would like the following information, and staff is authorized to present the
City's position on the transit issue based on these questions and issues:
1) Provide the total Plymouth property tax levy paid for transit service since
1990, to include the 90 percent eligible to be used by the City for transit service,
the actual amount expended each year, and the unspent balance.
2) Question and determine whether property taxes could be legally used to
fund Metro Mobility in light of the statute capping the Metro Mobility program to
the allocated state funding.
3) Question and determine the legislative intent of what cities were to be
included in the Metro Mobility program in the "metro area" under the statute.
Special Council Meeting
July 11, 1995
Page 5
There is a fairness issue of Plymouth not receiving the same service as other cities
from state dollars.
4) Report on status of AMM involvement and position with respect to these
transit issues.
5) Provide additional information on the 1,400 trips per month in Plymouth on
the Metro Mobility system. Repeat ridership? Where are they going? Purpose of
Use?
6) Develop a scenario including costs to expand the existing Dial -a -Ride
service, to provide accessible Dial -a -Ride vehicles, and to implement a limited
paratransit service with connections to Metro Mobility at Ridgedale or other
connecting points. This option could be considered if Metro Mobility is
discontinued in Plymouth.
Manager Johnson stated that staff will use these questions and concerns to discuss
this issue with the Metropolitan Council and area legislators.
Councilmember Wold stated he would like the City to take a firm position and
push the Metropolitan Council on this issue.
Mayor Tierney stated that a meeting of the Council Subcommittee will be called.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Laurie F. Ahrens
City Clerk
G.C. BENTLEY ASSOC. INC. 7525 Mitchell Rd., Ste. 216 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 937-3502
July 19, 1995
MEMO TO: John Sweeney, Plymouth Metrolink
FROM: George Bentley L
SUBJECT: Historical Tax Collections and Expenditures for Metrolink
SUMMARY
At the special Plymouth City Council meeting on July 11, the Council members requested information
about the historical transit tax collections in Plymouth, the corresponding 90 percent of those collections
available to Metrolink, the annual expenditures by Metrolink and the status of the Budget Carryover Fund
for Metrolink. This memo contains the requested information for the period 1991 - 1995. The Council
had requested data for 1990 as well, but the Regional Transit Board (RTB) did not break out the
information individually until 1991 when the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority started operations. If
the Council would still like the 1990 data it can be obtained, but it will take some time to extract the
information.
REGIONAL TRANSIT TAX COLLECTIONS AND SUBSIDIES
The following table illustrates the total transit tax collections in Plymouth, the 90 percent figure, the total
use of available funding (the subsidy) and the unused portion of the 90 percent for 1991 - 1995 (please
note that the 1995 figures are estimates):
TOTAL $8,149,216.67 $7,334,295.00 $4,998,950.00 $2,335,345.00
ATTACHMENT No. 3
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS • LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS • CONSULTING
Total Local 90% Net Local Unused
Year Property Tax Property Tax Subsidy Available Funds
1991 1,482,736.67 1,334,463.00 845,002.00 489,461.00
1992 1,598,398.89 1,438,559.00 1,045,688.00 392,871.00
1993 1,586,495.56 1,427,846.00 910,536.00 517,310.00
1994 1,692,412.22 1,523,171.00 904,842.00 618,329.00
1995 1,789,173.33 1,610,256.00 1,292,882.00 317,374.00
TOTAL $8,149,216.67 $7,334,295.00 $4,998,950.00 $2,335,345.00
ATTACHMENT No. 3
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS • LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS • CONSULTING
Historical Data
Page 2
BUDGET CARRYOVER FUND
Prior to 1993 the unused portion of opt -out transit system's unused available funds automatically reverted
to the RTB for other regional uses. In 1992 a Budget Carryover Policy was adopted by the RTB which
gave each opt -out system access to its previous year's unused available funds for one year, placed the
balance of those funds into an opt -out pool for one additional year, and then provided for the remaining
balance to revert to the region at the end of two years, beginning with the carryover accrued at the end of
1993.
In July, 1994, after Minnesota Valley Transit requested its 1993 carryover funds, the RTB changed the
policy, retroactive to the carryover accrued in 1993. The revised policy provided that one-half of the
carryover funds would be retained for use by the individual opt -out system that accrued those funds for
an indefinite period, and the other one-half would revert to the region. The carryover fund for each opt -
out system would accumulate with the addition of each year's carryover. Carryover funds could not be
accessed until current year funds were totally spent down.
Based upon this formula, the accumulated budget carryover fund for Plymouth Metrolink for 1993 and
1994 would be $567,819.50 (1993 carryover of $517,310 plus the 1994 carryover of $618,329 times
50%).
In late 1994 the Metropolitan Council, after assuming control of the regional transit system from the now
defunct RTB, requested a "voluntary" transfer of funds from the opt -out systems to the regular route
system due to a projected 1995 budget shortfall. The total transfer requested was $2,650,000. Most of
the funds would come from the region's share of the Budget Carryover Fund, but an additional amount of
726,853 was also requested from the accumulated 1993 and 1994 opt -out share of the carryover fund.
The "contribution" requested of Plymouth Metrolink was $143,888.50.
With this contribution, the total amount of carryover funds currently available to Plymouth
Metrolink is $423,931. This amount may be adjusted upward by as much as $25,000 pending the results
of negotiations with Southwest Metro Transit over the amount of their "voluntary contribution."
There is no 1995 Budget Carryover Fund for 1995 until the end of 1995. Unprogrammed dollars for
1995 are still classified as 1995 funds.
RECOMMENDATION
This memo is provided FYI.
G.C. BENTL EY ASSOC. INC. 7525 Mitchell Rd., Ste. 216 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 937-3502
July 18, 1995
MEMO TO: John Sweeney, Plymouth Metrolink
FROM: George Bentley 1
SUBJECT: Paratransit Service Cost Comparisons
SUMMARY
The Metropolitan Council is proceeding with the approval process of Metro Mobility restructuring,
including the termination of service in Plymouth, effective October 1, 1995. At the special Plymouth City
Council meeting on July 11, the Council members requested comparative costs of options under
consideration for a replacement paratransit service in Plymouth. Costs have been received to continued
service from Metro Mobility for six months and from National School Bus Service, Inc. (NSB) for an
expanded dial -a -ride program. Also included in this memo is an estimated cost to implement a fixed
route service, although the implementation of such a service may not result in continued Metro Mobility
service in Plymouth.
TEMPORARY METRO MOBILITY SERVICE
The Metropolitan Council and Metro Mobility have proposed continuing Metro Mobility service in
Plymouth for an additional six month period beginning October 1, 1995, and continuing through March
31, 1996. Payment for this service would come from the transit property tax collections in Plymouth and
would count against the 90 percent of those funds Plymouth is eligible to receive.
A cost estimate of this temporary service was provided by Mark Fuhrmann, the Metropolitan Council
staff member in charge of this restructuring. This cost estimate makes certain assumptions:
An average of 3,100 trips per month would be made over the six month period (this is comparable to
the ridership on Metro Mobility in Plymouth during May, 1995)
An average fare of $1.70 per trip would be collected (current experience), and the proposed fare
increase for November 1, 1995 would not be factored into the estimate
All requested trips would be provided, within the capacity of the system, consistent with ADA
required service
Experience has shown consistent ridership growth on Metro Mobility, so the cost estimate may be
low
This estimate is for six months only
ATTACHMENT No. 4
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS - LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS - CONSULTING
Cost Estimates
Page 2
With these assumptions, the following cost estimate was provided:
Estimated 6 Mo. Cost - $207,900
Estimated Fares (18,600 trips X $1.70) - —41.1=)
Estimated 6 Mo. Subsidy - $176,280 *
Estimated subsidy is based upon an assumed cost per trip of $11.20 and an assumed subsidy per
passenger of $9.50.
EXPANDED DIAL -A -RIDE SERVICE
At your request, John Mathews of NSB has prepared a cost estimate for expanding the existing dial -a -
ride service to accommodate most existing Metro Mobility rides. Because the service hours would be
limited to 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. some current rides would not be provided, and because of the need to
transfer riders at a centralized collection point, such as at Ridgedale, other riders would probably choose
other means of transportation.
This estimate incorporates three additional dial -a -ride vehicles (all lift -equipped) into the current dial -a -
ride fleet, each operating 13 hours per day during week days. Since the Saturday service is not operating
at capacity, it is assumed the existing Saturday service could handle the required paratransit trips during
the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
This service could be provided with a contract amendment to the existing NSB service contract and could
continue throughout the term of the contract. Payment for this service would come from the transit
property tax collections in Plymouth, and would count against the 90 percent of those funds Plymouth is
eligible to receive.
The NSB cost estimate also makes certain assumptions:
An average of 2,486 trips per month would be made over the six month period of comparison
An average fare of $1.70 per trip would be collected, and the proposed fare increase for November 1,
1995 would not be factored in
Not all requested trips would necessarily be provided due to system capacities (this would be
consistent with Plymouth's current status as a non -ADA attainment area)
The estimated average cost per vehicle per hour would be $29.00
Three additional vehicles would operate between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. weekdays
Cost Estimates
Page 3
With these assumptions, the following cost estimate was provided:
Estimated 6 Mo. cost - $144,203
Estimated Fares (14,916 trips X $1.70) - (25,357)
Estimated 6 Mo. Subsidy - $118,846 *
Estimated subsidy is based upon an assumed cost per trip of $9.67 and an assumed subsidy per
passenger of $7.97.
MID-DAY FIXED ROUTE SERVICE
John Mathews of NSB has also provided a cost estimate for a mid-day fixed route service to operate in
Plymouth. This cost estimate is very sketchy, but does provide a cost figure that is useful for the
purposes of comparison.
The fixed route concept would provide one vehicle operating between 6:00 a. m. and 6:00 p.m. (current
dial -a -ride hours) in a circulator fashion within Plymouth and possibly making connections outside the
borders of Plymouth. It would provide city-wide connections and new transit opportunities for all
citizens including those that are disabled or elderly.
The viability of this route in terms of ridersip and subsidy per passenger ratio has not been determined. In
addition, no needs analysis work has been done to develop feasibility and need for the service.
Mr. Mathews estimates the cost of this fixed route service to be $50,000 per year. My own calculations
place the cost of this service closer to $100,000. Mr. Mathews did his calculations very quickly.
DISCUSSION
Both the Metropolitan Council/Metro Mobility and the NSB cost estimates can be accommodated within
Plymouth's 90 percent of local transit tax collections, provided the Metropolitan Council approves the
additional funding.
Continuing Metro Mobility service for an additional six months allows Plymouth more time to plan a
replacement service capability, and continues the existing high level of service to the disabled community
through the winter months. In the short term it would minimize operational concerns for Metrolink and
would maintain Metro Mobility service responsibility through March.
Cost Estimates
Page 4
However, continuing Metro Mobility service for an additional six months would be more expensive than
the alternative of expanding dial -a -ride service, and would simply postpone service changes that will have
to be implemented in April, 1996. Consideration should be given to the impact on riders who will have to
experience the stress of service change discussions twice within less than a year.
The NSB plan for expanded dial -a -ride service would be relatively easy to implement and would provide
a basic level of service for disabled riders. If it was implemented in October, 1995, riders would only
have to experience service change discussions one time.
Another advantage to the NSB plan is the ability to control costs. Under the Metro Mobility plan there
would be no limit on the number of trips provided, thus no limit on the cost. With the NSB plan there
would be a limit on the potential trips based upon system capacity with a corresponding cap on costs.
Achieving system fluidity with the NSB plan might be more difficult in the winter months than in the
spring. Service quality issues and potential complaints will likely be higher with implementation in the
faWwinter than in spring/summer. Also, with the NSB plan, there will be administrative issues to manage,
such as service connections to Metro Mobility, driver training and liability issues. It should be kept in
mind that these issues will simply be deferred if implementation is delayed.
Putting a mid-day fixed route service into operation in Plymouth will become an ADA attainment area,
meaning that a comparable paratransit program must be implemented. Within most of the metro area this
would mean that Metro Mobility would be required to operate. However, because Plymouth is an opt -
out system, and because the Metropolitan Council staff continues to indicate that Metro Mobility service
will be discontinued in opt -out areas per a legal opinion, it is very likely that the required comparable
paratransit program would be funded through Plymouth Metrolink and would not be Metro Mobility.
The implementation of a mid-day fixed route service also creates two other considerations. First, such a
fixed route service would cause an increase in the transit property taxes in Plymouth based upon the
Metropolitan Council transit taxing district formulas. Second, with a mid-day fixed route service in
Plymouth there would be corresponding ADA service requirements that do not currently exist. If
Plymouth Metrolink becomes the responsible party for comparable paratransit service in Plymouth,
operating within a non -ADA attainment area will be much less difficult and much less expensive than
operating in an ADA attainment area. Ultimately Plymouth will have a mid-day fixed route service
because of need, but a decision to implement such a service should be based upon actual service needs
and not upon other considerations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussions with the Metropolitan Council should continue. No service recommendations are made at
this time.
G.C. BENTLEY ASSOC. INC. 7525 Mitchell Rd., Ste. 216 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 937-3502
July 20, 1995
MEMO TO: John Sweeney, Plymouth Metrolink
FROM: George Bentley /r,
SUBJECT: Metro Mobility Funding Law
SUMMARY
The Plymouth City Council has requested information regarding the law passed during the 1995
legislative session to fund Metro Mobility. The law was recorded in Minnesota Statutes Chapter No.
265, S.F. No. 371. In this statute the Metropolitan Council is appropriated $30.6 million for Metro
Mobility for the biennium starting July 1, 1995 and ending June 30, 1997 (FY 1996 and FY 1997).
BACKGROUND
Due to a concern expressed by many legislators over run -away spending on Metro Mobility by the
Regional Transit Board, Metro Mobility appropriations and spending have been capped since 1992.
The appropriations are provided every two years.
In the funding bill passed during the 1995 session Metro Mobility is listed as part of the total
appropriation for Metropolitan Council transit operations. In all the Metropolitan Council received
83,095,000 for the biennium, $42,037,000 in FY 1996 and $41,058,000 in FY 1997.
Of this total, Metro Mobility received $30.6 million, $15.3 million in FY 1996 and $15.3 million in FY
1997. The entire language in the law regarding Metro Mobility funding states:
The metropolitan council may not spend more than $15,300,000 the first year and $15,300,000
the second year on metro mobility, except for proceeds from bond sales where use of such
proceeds for metro mobility capital expenditures is authorized by law."
The last part of this language refers to new wording added to the metro transit capital bonding
authorization for the Metropolitan Council permitting the use of bond proceeds for Metro Mobility
vehicles. Previously those vehicles were funded out of the operations appropriation.
ISSUES
Since Metro Mobility service is mandated under federal law, and since ADA dictates the minimum level
of service in ADA attainment areas, the Metropolitan Council has few options in meeting the service
requirements within the funding cap for metro Mobility. With no changes in the current level of service
ATTACHMENT No.5
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS • LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS • CONSULTING
Metro Mobility Funding
Page 2
or fares the Met Council estimates a deficit in the Metro Mobility account by the end of the biennium of
over $4 million.
Previous funding language had specified the region could not spend any money for Metro Mobility
outside the legislative appropriation. However, the new language can be interpreted more liberally,
allowing any funds, regardless of source, to be spent on Metro Mobility, provided the total expenditure is
within the cap limits each year.
Property tax dollars collected in opt -out transit areas are proposed to be spent for extended Metro
Mobility service in Plymouth and Maple Grove from October 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996. These
dollars would be used to help buy down the Metro Mobility deficit. It could be argued that the real intent
of the Legislature was for the $30.6 million Metro Mobility spending limit to come entirely from the state
appropriation. However, since the statutory language was changed from the previous biennium it is no
longer totally clear what the legislative intent really was. It can safely be assumed that virtually all
legislators voting for the Metro Council transit appropriation bill thought they were providing the sole
source of Metro Mobility funding.
It can also be safely assumed that virtually all legislators think that Metro Mobility is a generic phrase
referring to paratransit service in the metropolitan area. Few legislators are aware of the fact that Metro
Mobility funding goes solely to the Metro Mobility system, while other paratransit programs operating in
non -ADA attainment areas are funded from property taxes or from the remaining state appropriation.
This issue would directly effect Plymouth should Metro Mobility service be terminated. The only
remaining source of funding for non -ADA paratransit service in Plymouth is from the locally collected
regional transit tax proceeds of which 90 percent are eligible for use by Plymouth Metrolink. This would
also apply if Plymouth implemented service to make the city an ADA attainment area but the Metro
Council invoked the policy it has been considering which would require opt -out systems to fund all
paratransit programs in the opt -out areas, even if those areas are ADA attainment areas. Senior Metro
Council staff have indicated that they intend to implement this policy in opt -out areas, a policy based on a
legal opinion given to the RTB by their attorney, in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION
It would be prudent to have the City Attorney further investigate these issues. It would also be sensible
to explore possible supplemental legislative funding for paratransit services in non -ADA attainment areas
in conjunction with other transit programs, such as Anoka County, Carver County, Scott County,
DARTS, HSI. etc.
5125599009 MN TRANS. ALLIANCE
1 The commissioner of transportation with
2 the approval of the commissioner of
3 finnce may transfer unencumbered
4 bal nces among the appropriations from
5 the trunk highway fund and the state
6 alr orts fund made in this section. No
7 transfer may be made from the
8 appropriation for state road
9 construction. No transfer may be made10fromtheappropriationsfordebt
11 service to any other appropriation.
12 Transfers may not be made between funds.
13 Transfers must be reported immediately14tothecommitteeonfinanceofthe
iS senate and the committee on ways and
16 means of the house of representatives.
454 P01 JUL 12 '95 16:--74
CHAPTER No. 265
S.F. No. 37L
17 Sec. 3. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
18 TRANSIT 42,037,000
19 Of this amount, the metropolitan
20 council may use up to $625,000 during21thebienniumtoimplementahigh-speed
22 bus demonstration project. The project
23 may be implemented with reorganized
24 existing transit service or provision
25 of new service.
26 Of this amount, 93S4,000 is for
27 security measures on transit vehicles,
28 including, but not limited to,
79 plexiglass enclosures for drivers and
30 on -bus surveillance cameras. The
31 council may also pay for these security32measuresoutoftheproceedsofbonds
33 issued under Minnesota Statutes,
34 section 473.39.
3S The metropolitan council may not spend
36 more than 916,300,000 the first year
37 and 915,300,000 the second year on
38 metro mobility, except for proceeds
39 from bond sales where use of such
40 proceeds for metro mobility capital
41 expenditures is authorized by law.
42 Sec. 4. TRANSPORTATION
43 REGULATION BOARD 605,000
44 This appropriation is from the trunk
45 highway fund.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
34
59
56
57
s8
59
60
61
62
63
64
Of this amount, $100,000 is for the
board, in cooperation with the
commissioner of transportation, the
center for transportation studies, and
the legislative auditor, to conduct a
study of the transfer of powers,
duties, and functions of the board to
an appropriate agency. The study must
include (1) which powers of the board
should be eliminated, and (2) the
relocation to other agencies of those
powers of the board that should be
retained. In conducting the study, the
board shall establish and consult with
an advisory committee that includes,
but is not limited to, representatives
of for -hire and private trucking,
including household goods movers;
railroads; representatives of for -hire
Article 2 Section 4 12
41,058,000
G.C. BENTL EY ASSOC. INC. 7525 Mitchell Rd., Ste. 216 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 937-3502
July 21, 1995
MEMO TO: John Sweeney, Plymouth Metrolink
FROM: George Bentley )P— 1j j
SUBJECT: Essential Nature of Metro Mobility Trips in Plymouth
IUMc C 1
The Plymouth City Council has inquired about how essential Metro Mobility service is in Plymouth.
Specifically they asked about the types of trips Metro Mobility users make, where the riders go, and the
overall need for the service.
This memo addresses these questions and explains the limitations in statistical trip information under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
CURRENT TRIP DISPERSION
May, 1995 is the most current month for which trip data on Metro Mobility service in Plymouth is
available. During May there were 3,110 Metro Mobility trips out of Plymouth, into Plymouth and within
Plymouth. The dispersion of these trips is as follows:
Trips within Plymouth (origin and destination are Plymouth addresses):
Total - 182 trips
Wheel chair trips - 65
Ambulatory trips - 117
Weekend trips - 10
Weekday trips - 172
Peak hour trips - 102
Non -peak hour trips - 80
Trips from Plymouth to Maple Grove:
Total - 42 trips
Wheel chair trips - 1
Ambulatory trips - 41
ATTACHMENT No. 6
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS - LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS - CONSULTING
Metro Mobility Trips
Page 2
Weekend trips - 0
Weekday trips - 42
Peak hour trips - 7
Non -peak hour trips - 35
Trips from Maple Grove to Plymouth:
Total - 16 trips
Wheel chair trips - 0
Ambulatory trips - 16
Weekend trips - 0
Weekday trips - 16
Peak hour trips - 15
Non -peak hour trips -
Trips from Plymouth to other destinations (excluding Maple Grove):
Total - 1,426 trips
Wheel chair trips - 408
Ambulatory trips - 1,018
Weekend trips - 93
Weekday trips - 1,333
Peak hour trips - 607
Non -peak hour trips - 819
Trips into Plymouth from other destinations (excluding Maple Grove):
Total - 1,444 trips
Wheel chair trips - 397
Ambulatory trips - 1,047
Weekend trips - 99
Weekday trips - 1,345
Peak hour trips - 720
Non -peak how trips - 724
Actual pick-up and drop-off addresses are available at Metro Mobility, and some of the information has
been made available to Metrolink operations, but ADA specifically prohibits the public dissemination of
this information and allows it to be kept only for operational purposes.
Metro Mobility Trips
Page 3
TRIP PURPOSES
ADA prohibits the granting or denial of trips based upon trip purposes. It can be assumed that ridership
purposes parallel those of regular route transit. Trip purpose studies have not been done in the Twin
Cities metro area.
The following data was prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Paratransit Plan in 1990 by
Crain and Assoc., Inc., Pat Piras Consulting Services, and Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Services for
Working Paper 6: Service Needs Analysis."
Trip Purpose Spokane New York Chicago Milwaukee Pittsbur h National
Medical 34% 16% 66% 19% 24% 11—%,
Work 2% 13% 15% 28% 18%
Educational 14% 6% 7% 5% 9% 9%
Shopping/Personal 49% 44% 22% 23% 23% 34%
Liesure/Recreation 22% 5% 38% 16% 28%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
May not total 100% due to rounding
It should be kept in mind that this study was 5 years ago and may not reflect demographics or trip needs
today in the Twin Cities area. The Metro Mobility Service Center considers it to be in violation of the
ADA guidelines for studies to be generated that illustrate the purposes of Metro Mobility trips since the
passage of ADA in 1990.
PARATRANSIT SERVICE NEEDS IN PLYMOUTH
Plymouth has a large amount of housing for the disabled, including housing for developmentally disabled
individuals and group homes. A large and growing senior population also exists, and seniors are
increasingly being certified as eligible for Metro Mobility service. Opportunity Workshop provides a
large facility in Plymouth that is a significant trip generator for Metro Mobility. Adult day care facilities,
dialysis needs, and other medical necessities warrant accessible paratransit services.
Work related trips are among the most prevalent uses of Metro Mobility in and out of Plymouth. Many
disabled Plymouth residents work in locations throughout the metro area, and there is a large influx of
disabled individuals each day from outside the city to employment centers in Plymouth. Employers in
Plymouth have demonstrated a commendable effort to hire disabled individuals in large numbers, and the
need for paratransit capabilities exists for these employees.
Metro Mobility Trips
Page 4
CONCLUSION
Over 3,100 trips per months are currently taken on Metro Mobility into, out of and within Plymouth.
This number is expected to continue to grow. While ADA does not allow for the public dissemination of
trip locations or trip purposes, it can be assumed that trips are taken for work related purposes, medical
trips, shopping, and for personal purposes. Under ADA all trips must be provided, and no types of trips
have precedence over other types of trips, the same as it would be for trips on the regular route transit
system.
The sizeable amount of disabled and senior housing, the presence of Opportunity Workshop and other
facilities, the willingness of Plymouth employers to hire disabled individuals and the need for disabled
Plymouth residents to access paratransit services for their own mobility purposes all indicate a need for
adequate paratransit provision in the city.
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. l amphell (612) 452-5000 Andrea McDowell Coehler
Roger N. Knursom
Fax (6l2) 452-5550 TtKLI L. Nissen
Thomas M. Scott Marguerite M. McCarron
iry G. Fuchs George T. Stephenson
James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knetsch
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE
July 21, 1995
Mr. Dwight Johnson
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55044
RE: TRANSIT FUNDING
Dear Dwight:
You have asked me to respond to several questions concerning the funding of paratransit
service. The questions, as I understand them, and my answers follow.
Q. Does the A.D.A. require anyone operating a transit service to provide special
transportation service to individuals with disabilities?
A. 42 U.S.C. § 12143 provides that any public entity that operates a fixed route
transit service ("other than a system which provides solely commuter bus
service") must provide special transportation service to individuals with
disabilities. Since the Plymouth Metro Link only provides "commuter service" it
Ar:4coL swGti7 does not have to provide paratransit service. Enclosed is a copy of the statute and
AVA1LAOZAC a letter from the attorney for the Regional Transit Board ("RTB") dated June 1,
Jpo,v.Sr
1994.
Q. Does the Metropolitan Council Transit appropriation bill prevent the Metropolitan
Council from using, at our request, part of our "available local transit funds" to
provide paratransit service to Plymouth on a contract basis?
A. There is no clear answer. Chapter 265, Act 2 § 2, Minnesota Session Law 1995,
provides:
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center 0 1380 Corporate Center CurveA,y tp i5l21
No. 7
Mr. Dwight Johnson
July 21, 1995
Page 2
APPROPRIATED FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30
1996 1997
Sec. 3. Metropolitan Council Transit. $42,037,000 $41,058,000
Of this amount, the metropolitan council may use up
to $625,000 during the biennium to implement a high-
speed bus demonstration project. The project may be
implemented with reorganized existing transit service
or provision of new service.
Of this amount $354,000 is for security measures on
transit vehicles, including, but not limited to, plexi-
glass enclosures for drivers and on -bus surveillance
cameras. The council may also pay for these security
measures out of the proceeds of bonds issued under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.39.
The metropolitan council may not spend more than
15,300,000 the first year and $15,300,000 the second
year on metro mobility, except for proceeds from bond
sales where use of such proceeds for metro mobility
capital expenditures is authorized by law.
The limitation on spending for metro mobility, unlike the limitation on spending
for high-speed buses and transit security, does not state it is a limitation only
applicable to the funds appropriated by the legislature. A reasonable argument can
be made that the limitation only applies to state appropriated funding. If we give
the Metropolitan Council city property tax receipts and then by contract have
them provide paratransit service, the money the city is giving them is not
Metropolitan Council money" and therefore the specified limitation on spending
does would apply. If you want me to pursue this further, I would examine the
legislative history.
Q. Can the City use "available local transit funds" [i.e., 90% of the real property tax
revenues that can be levied for transit under Minn. Stat. § 473.446] to provide
paratransit service?
A. The answer is a qualified, yes. Minn. Stat. § 473.388, Subd. 4 provides in part:
financial Assistance. The council may grant the requested financial
assistance if it determines that the proposed service is intended to replace
the service to the applying city or town or combination thereof by the
council and that the proposed service will meet the needs of the applicant
at least as efficiently and effectively as the existing service.
Mr. Dwight Johnson
July 21, 1995
Page 3
The amount of assistance which the council may provide under this section
may not exceed the sum of.•
a) the portion of the available local transit funds which the applicant
proposes to use to subsidize the proposed service; and
b) an amount offinancial assistance bearing an identical proportional
relationship to the amount under clause (a) as the total amount of
financial assistance to the council bears to the total amount of
taxes collected by the council under Section 473.446. The council
shall pay the amount to be provided to the recipient from the
assistance the council would otherwise pay to the council.
For purposes of this section "available transitfunds " means ninety percent
90%) of the tax revenues which would accrue to the council from the tax
it levies under Section 473.466 in the applicant city or town or
combination thereof.
The quoted statute states that the Council "may" grant assistance. The then RTB's
general counsel issued the enclosed opinion in 1991 interpreting the statute. In his
opinion:
Because the Opt Out program is funded with a specified funding
mechanism, the RTB does not have authority to make funding decisions on
the basis offiscal policy alone.
XXX
The replacement service program is a discretionary program of the RTB.
Specifically, the legislature has authorized that "the transit board
provide assistance under the program... ". Minnesota Statutes § 473.388,
Subd. 2 (emphasis added). The use of the term "may " in this section and
in Minnesota Statutes § 473.388, Subd. 4 allows the RTB to exercise its
discretion in approving financial assistance to a community for
replacement service transit.
Subdivision 4 gives the RTB some limits on exercising discretion and limits
the RTB in cases where there is an inconsistency with the RTB
implementation plan or a lack of efficiency in providing transit service.
The RTB is further limited in that the amount of assistance which it may
provide cannot exceed a maximum amount defined in the statute. The
statute provides no guidance in other areas.
Mr. Dwight Johnson
July 21, 1995
Page 4
The legislature clearly calledfor RTB discretion in the approval of Op Out
programs and provided some guidance for the exercise of that discretion.
In addition, the RTB, as a unit of government must act reasonably and not
be arbitrary or capricious in exercising its authority. This means any
decision made must be supported by a transit policy reason for the action.
Based upon that opinion, we can argue that they can't keep part of "available
local transit funds" so they can use the money for subsidizing their regular route
service. To deny the City use of its own money they would have to find that our
proposed use for paratransit service was inconsistent with the "implementation
plan"
John Sweeney's memo of June 29, 1995, discussed the possibility of providing
limited mid-day transit service to make the City eligible for metro mobility.
Although John is not at all optimistic about the chance of success, I wouldn't
write-off making an attempt. We could ask for a demonstration project to
determine the level of interest.
If I missed any of your questions, please let me know.
RNK: srn
Enclosures
Tuesday/August 22/1995/Star Tribune
Breaka
suburban
bus lines
flourishing
Interest grows in
sharing wealth
By Laurie Blake
Staff Writer
The news is upbeat from the 12 sec-
ond -ring suburbs that are running
their own bus systems.
Burnsville opened an attractive new
transit center last month.
Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhas-
sen have just bought a fleet of 23 new
buses.
And all five systems, whose sponsor-
ing cities broke from the metrowide
operation during the 1980s, report
that ridership is growing and that
support from local property taxes is
strong.
By contrast, the Metropolitan Coun-
cil Transit Operations (MCTO), the
core bus system serving the rest of
the Twin Cities, is cutting service,
raising fares and losing riders.
Seeing the difference, the question
policymakers face is what, if any-
thing, to do about it.
Some, including Rep. Myron Orfield,
DFL -Minneapolis, want to force the
12 suburbs and their tax money back
into the MCTO.
Transit/ Unity
on the issue
proves difficult
to come by
Continued from page 1A
Others, including Rep. Charlie Wea-
ver, IR -Anoka, want to allow more
second -ring suburbs to become tran-
sit entrepreneurs by kicking in a state
subsidy for communities that don't
have a tax base strong enough to
launch their own service.
A third group, including Metropoli-
tan Council Chairman Curt Johnson,
wants to keep the suburban ridership
growing while reaching a better un-
derstanding with those cities about
when and how much of their proper-
ty tax money may be used for the
larger bus system.
We see it as a regional system in
which we don't really pit one part
against the other," Johnson said.
We're trying to unite the people
Who want to see public transporta-
tion get better."
But unity is not coming easily to this
issue.
In the 1980s, the cities of Plymouth,
Maple Grove, Chaska, Chanhassen,
Shakopee, Eden Prairie, Burnsville,
Eagan, Apple Valley, Prior Lake,
Savage and Rosemount said they re-
ceived such poor service from the old
Metropolitan Transit Commission
that they sought legislative permis-
sion to "opt out" of paying for the
MTC and use their property tax reve-
nue to pay for their own service
instead.
Me results have been positive.
Once Maple Grove started its own
routes, ridership grew from 200 be-
fore 1990 to 1,100 riders a day now.
Southwest Metro Transit, which
serves Eden Prairie, Chaska and
Chanhassen, carries between 500,000
and 600,000 riders a year, up from
2,000 in 1990. And its reverse com-
muting service, taking people from
Minneapolis to suburban jobs, began
with just five riders in 1992 and now
carries 400 to 450 passengers a day.
Plymouth Metrolink provides
210,000 rides a year, up 10 percent
from last year. Shakopee counts
55,000 riders a year on its communi-
ty dial -a -ride and commuter van
pools.
And the Burnsville, Eagan, Apple
Valley, Prior Lake, Savage and Rose-
mount coalition, called the Minneso-
to Valley Transit Authority, expects
to provide 1.2 million rides this year.
Although the central bus system is in
trouble, suburban officials do not
apologize for their successes.
We could have put every passenger
into limousines for what we were
paying" under the old MTC system,
said Apple Valley Mayor Will Bran-
ning. "It was not convenient; the
hours were set by somebody else. We
said, 'Give us our taxes back and we
will pay into the regional system
what is appropriate.' ".
We're probably doing a better job of
managing our resources. It's hard to
feel guilty about that," said John
Sweeney, transit administrator for
the Plymouth Metrolink. If Plym-
outh had not left the MTC, "I'm
convinced the Plymouth residents
wouldn't have the service that they
have today."
The MCTO service to second-tier
suburbs that did not opt out indicates
that Sweeney is right.
Anoka, Coon Rapids and Blaine
have to fight for every bus," Weaver
said. "It's a long drive and we are
kind of on the outskirts of the metro-
polimn area and we have had to work
hard to get decent, reliable consistent
service. And we don't have these big
fancy stops. We are standing out
freezing in the cold while these other
opt -out] communities have
shelters."
But Weaver is against forcing the
opt -out communities back into the
core system. "It's good to have the
opt -outs to the extent that they have
shown that you can run a cheaper,
more successful bus system," he said.
Orfield, in Minneapolis; wants to re-
turn the opt -out communities to the
bus system, even if that means sacri-
ficing their ridership, because they
have nearly "40 percent of the re-
gion's tax base," he said.
I'm fully in support of white collar
workers commuting by bus, but in an
era of limited resources people [who]
don't have cars should be the first in
line to get bus service," he said.
Where do all the people who desper-
ately need buses live? They live in
the cities and first -ring suburbs."
Chaska Mayor Bob Roepke said he
resents Orfield's pitting the central
cities against the suburbs. The es-
sence of the debate is who controls
the transit property tax money,
Roepke said.
It's our position that those are local
property tax dollars used to support
transit," he said. "We opted out of
the transit system in the first place so
we could improve the system for the
same or less money and we've been
able to do that."
Orfield may say the suburbs are just
looking out for themselves, Roepke
said, but "we don't agree that that's
true. It's so frustrating when we have
been able to improve the transit sys-
tem, get it to be more successful and
get people more aware of it, and use
it as a community builder," Roepke
said.
Growing (disparity in bus service
Due to a lack of money, the Twin Cities core bus system is cutting service,
raising fares and losing riders. But the 12 suburbs that opted out of the
core system in the 1980s are enjoying increasing ridership. One has
bought a new fleet of buses and another has just built a high-tech transit
station. Policy makers are struggling with what to do about the disparity
between the systems.
OCities I _..... serviced by Blaem
the core system
35
Cltles
sa
that opted `
f C`f' 35 t
out of the 69e
core system . _ Stitlwate .
pJ1 tt
St. PaW
r se
I ase r — lnrr alis
i t 35 ( Woodbury
f777
Ch>yl'itfils"t'1 ese f--
EdYri 4 l
Prafrli asW •I
zz
Ship
Ntlar , `tttotirtt•
LAW
Core system Opt -out routes"
passengers in millions) (passengers in thousands)
80 2.0
R
70 1.5
60 rT1.0
50 .• i
5
0 0
85'86'87'88'89'90'91 '92'93'94 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94
Source: Metropolitan Council ' Does not include dial -a -ride programs.
Star Tribune Graphic
Suburbanites report
no interest, no need
to ride MCTO buses
If upstart suburban systems aren't
enough of a headache for the Metro-
politan Council Transit Operations
MCTO), suburbanites' near -univer-
sal refusal to take the bus can only
compound the pain.
Attempts to entice suburban com-
muters onto the bus haven't pro-
duced significant numbers, a Star
Tribune / WCCO-TV Minnesota
Poll has found.
Only 3 percent of suburbanites in the
11 -county Twin Cities metropolitan
area said they ride the bus regularly;
80 percent said they never do.
Although poll respondents who don't
ride the bus cited more than a dozen
reasons, the most frequent answers
indicate that transit officials have not
persuaded people that a bus is an
adequate substitute for a private ve-
hicle.
Six out of 10 suburbanites who don't
ride the bus said that they have a car,
have no need to ride the bus," or
that it's inconvenient.
While Minneapolis and St. Paul resi-
dents ride the bus proportionately
more often than their suburban
counterparts, those who don't gave
the same reasons in almost the same
percentages.
Within the central cities, 18 percent
of Minneapolitans and 16 percent of
SL Paulites said they use the bus
system regularly.
The poll, taken July 14-30 of 1,523
metro -area residents, also found that
for all the complaining among Twin
Citians about highway congestion,
transportation is a hot -button public
policy issue for only tiny minority.
Asked to rank five problems con-
fronting the Twin Cities, transporta-
tion ranked last, cited by only 2 per-
cent of those polled; it ranked be-
hind, in order, crime, the quality of
public education, well -paying jobs
and affordable housing.
Bob Von Sternberg
C '
C
9
C
C E
t•CC
CC
CC 1
EC••
I
t
saa
Opt -out' transmit
Not the cure for basic system ills
A's a transit experiment, the so-called
Opt -out" legislation has been a rousing
success. It allowed groups of Twin Cit-
ies suburbs to break away from the
region's core bus system in the late '80s
to create systems of their own. 'As a
result, outlying communities that used
to get some of the area's worst transit
service now get some of the best —
with rising ridership figures to prove it.
But as with so many good things,
there's a downside: Among the commu-
nities -that opted out were some of the
fastest-growing in the region. When
they left what is now the Metropolitan
Council Transit Operations (MCTO)
system, they took their fast-growing
property tax bases with them.
One result has been to assure the opt=
out systems a steadily expanding source
of local revenue$, allowing the systems
to improve service while holding the
line on fares — a combination sure to
attract and retain riders. Another, less
happy, consequence has been to leave
the core system with a comparatively
stagnant local property -tax base at the
same time it is losing federal aid and
g6tting no additional state dollars. That
has left the MCTO with no choice but
tq cut service and raise fares, a course
guaranteed to accelerate already worri-
some ridership declines.
j So it is that some legislators are looking
to the transit opt -outs for a possible
solution to what ails the core system —
albeit from two entirely different per-
spectives. One view would build on the
success of the opt -outs by encouraging
more of them. The other would force
the current opt -outs back into the core
system not only to recover their tax
bases but to assure more "reverse -com-
mute" bus service to better enable cen-
tral -city residents to take advantage of
expanding suburban job opportunities.
Neither approach, however, seems a
good way to solve the fundamental
funding problem confronting the
MCTO bus system. Forcing the opt -
outs back into the core system seems
especially wrongheaded because it
would reverse a policy that has shown
progress toward what ought to be the
Twin Cities region's primary transit
goal: to increase ridership as an alterna-
tive to use of the private automobile.
Adding more opt -outs, however, might
further weaken the core system — driv-
ing away more of its riders than any
increase in opt -out ridership could pos-
sibly make up for. It should be kept in
mind that while opt -out ridership has
increased by about 1.5 million since
1988, core system ridership has fallen
by about 4 million over the same peri-
od, according to Met Council figures.
And the opt -outs still account for only a
small fraction of total Twin Cities area
transit ridership.
A better solution to the problems of the
MCTO would be to reduce or eliminate
the use of local property taxes as a
source of•transit subsidies while draw-
ing more heavily on the state for sup-
port — preferably by allowing some -
gas -tax revenues to be used for transit.
The goal must be to increase transit •
funding, service and ridership through-
out the metropolitan area — not just in
some parts of it.
Working wom, omen
They, could be key to political success
k.Working women want to be guaranteed curing good healthcare for themcelv
Useless
Sure wish you
effort to put tl
helmets (Varii
look silly and i
tion Day. The
cyclist are the
choice; motors
down every yi
repeal of the h,
why is freedon
not for bikers?
Helmets cut oi
hearing, and ti
wind. But mos
cause they don
somnolent car
nfa mntnrrvrtr
18A Thursday/August 24/1995 StarTribune
Op t -out transit
Not the cure for basic system ills
As a transit experiment, the so-called
opt -out" legislation has been a rousing
success. It allowed groups of Twin Cit-
ies suburbs to break away from the
region's core bus system in the late '80s
to create systems of their own. 'As a
result, outlying communities that used
to get some of the area's worst transit
service now get some of the best —
with rising ridership figures to prove it.
But as with so many good things,
there's a downside: Among the commu-
nities that opted out were some of the
fastest-growing in the region. When
they left what is now the Metropolitan
Council Transit Operations (MCTO)
system, they took their fast-growing
property tax bases with them.
One result has been to assure the opt -
out systems a steadily expanding source
of local revenues, allowing the systems
to improve service while holding the
line on fares — a combination sure to
attract and retain riders. Another, less
happy, consequence has been to leave
the core system with a comparatively
stagnant local property -tax base at the
same time it is losing federal aid and
getting no additional state dollars. That
has left the MCTO with no choice but
to cut service and raise fares, a course
guaranteed to accelerate already worri-
some ridership declines.
So it is that some legislators are looking
to the transit opt -outs for a possible
solution to what ails the core system —
albeit from two entirely different per-
spectives. One view would build on the
success of the opt -outs by encouraging
more of them. The other would force
the current opt -outs back into the core
system not only to recover their tax
bases but to assure more "reverse -com-
mute" bus service to better enable cen-
tral -city residents to take advantage of
expanding suburban job opportunities.
Neither approach, however, seems a
good way to solve the fundamental
funding problem confronting the
MCTO bus system. Forcing the opt -
outs back into the core system seems
especially wrongheaded because it
would reverse a policy that has shown
progress toward what ought to be the
Twin Cities region's primary transit
goal: to increase ridership as an alterna-
tive to use of the private automobile.
Adding more opt -outs, however, might
further weaken the core system — driv-
ing away more of its riders than any
increase in opt -out ridership could pos-
sibly make up for. It should be kept in
mind that while opt -out ridership has
increased by about 1.5 million since
1988, core system ridership has fallen
by about 4 million over the same peri-
od, according to Met Council figures.
And the opt -outs still account for only a
small fraction of total Twin Cities area
transit ridership.
A better solution to the problems of the
MCTO would be to reduce or eliminate
the use of local property taxes as a
source of transit subsidies while draw-
ing more heavily on the state for sup-
port — preferably by allowing some
gas -tax revenues to be used for transit.
The goal must be to increase transit
funding, service and ridership through-
out the metropolitan area — not just in
some parts of it.
Working w omen
ThPv rni drl hA ho% / +r, i , .
Useless
Sure wish yc
effort to put
helmets (Va:
look silly ani
tion Day. Tt
cyclist are th
choice: mote
down every;
repealofthe
why is freed(
not for biker
Helmets cut
hearing, and
wind Rilrmi